Franklin Jr. v. Karyn's Cooked Inc. Et Al

Case: 1:15-cv-07716 Document #: 6 Filed: 09/02/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
OLLIE FRANKLIN JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
KARYNS COOKED INC., and 738 NORTH
WELLS BUILDING LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:15-cv-07716

Circuit Court No. 2015-L-007234
MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 40.41

Defendants, KARYNS COOKED INC. and 738 NORTH WELLS BUILDING LLC, by
and through their undersigned attorneys, in support of their Motion for Reassignment, state as
follows:
1.
John D. Steele of the Accessibility Law Group has filed the following cases in the
Northern District of Illinois and in the Circuit Court of Cook County that were removed to this
Court in recent time on behalf of several plaintiffs utilizing a boilerplate complaint all seeking
modest cash settlements for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
1:15-cv-03800 Mapp v. City Colleges of Chicago, et al, filed 04/30/15
1:15-cv-04197 Mizerk v. Kebritchi, et al, filed 05/12/15
1:15-cv-04221 Franklin v. Huron Street Associates LLC, et al, filed 05/13/15
1:15-cv-04249 Mizerk v. Chicago Cafe, Inc., et al, filed 05/14/15
1:15-cv-04251 Franklin v. Brett's Kitchen, Inc., et al, filed 05/14/15

1
Pursuant to LR 40.4, this Motion was filed in the lowest-numbered case of the claimed related
set, Case No. 1:15-cv-03800, Mapp v. City Colleges of Chicago and Noticed up before Hon.
Milton I. Shadur on September 11, 2015 at 9:15 a.m. (A copy of the Notice of Motion is attached
as Exhibit B).
1:15-cv-06681 Davis v. Albany Plaza LLC, et al, filed 07/30/15
1:15-cv-06780 Franklin Jr. v Lago Inc, et al, filed 08/03/15
1:15-cv-07131 Mizerk v. LaSalle Flowers, Inc,. et al, filed 08/14/15
1:15-cv-07334 Davis v. Dental Experts, LLC, et al, filed 08/21/15
1:15-cv-07335 Davis v. Royal Dental La Villita P.C., et al, filed 08/21/15
1:15-cv-07336 Davis v. Guerrero LP, Inc., et al, filed 08/21/15
1:15-cv-07337 Berry v. E and E Holdings, Inc., et al, filed 08/21/15
2.
Attorney Steele has also filed approximately twelve other suits in Cook County
Circuit Court making the same boilerplate allegations that will likely be removed to the Northern
District of Illinois.
3.
The plaintiff in case numbers 1:15-cv-04197, 1:15-cv-04249, and 1:15-cv-07131
told CBS 2 in a report that aired on August 13, 2015 that she was solicited by Steeles paralegal
at her SRO and is currently suing approximately ten establishments but she did not know which.
4.
Several of the other Plaintiffs reside at the same SRO and discovery will likely
show they were also solicited by Attorney Steeles paralegal in violation of Illinois Rule of
Professional Conduct 7.3.
5.
The complaints recently filed by Attorney Steele all have similar allegations and
many will likely result in Rule 11 sanctions if litigated as there has apparently been no
investigation as to whether changes to the property are readily achievable. (Copies of the
Complaints and/or Notices of Removal are attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
6.
The Local Rule 40.4 controlling reassignment provides in pertinent part:
(a) Definitions. Two or more civil cases may be related if one or more of the
following conditions are met:
(1) the cases involve the same property;
(2) the cases involve some of the same issues of fact or law;

(3) the cases grow out of the same transaction or occurrence; or

(4) in class action suits, one or more of the classes involved in the cases is or are
the same.
(b) Conditions for Reassignment. A case may be reassigned to the calendar of
another judge if it is found to be related to an earlier-numbered case assigned to
that judge and each of the following criteria is met:
(1) both cases are pending in this Court;
(2) the handling of both cases by the same judge is likely to result in a substantial
saving of judicial time and effort;
(3) the earlier case has not progressed to the point where designating a later filed
case as related would be likely to delay the proceedings in the earlier case
substantially; and
(4) the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding.
(emphasis added.)
7.
These cases all involve some of the exact same issues of fact and issues of law.
8.
The first issue in each case is whether the plaintiffs solicited by Steele have
standing and actually attempted to visit the establishments they sued.

9.
The second issue in each is whether the plaintiff, made a reasonably inquiry as to
whether the Defendants were actually compliant with the ADA.

10.
The third issue in each case to determine is what fees Attorney Steele is entitle to
if there is a violation and his plaintiff has standing.

11.
Assigning this case and other cases filed by the Accessibility Law Group with
the same allegations to the same District Judge will enable prompt resolution and expedited
discovery of these specious lawsuits.
12.
All the cases listed above are pending in this Court, the Court will save
tremendous time and effort hearing these cases together, all of the cases are in their infancy and
filed within approximately 90 days, and the cases are susceptible to disposition in a single
settlement conference.
WHEREFORE, KARYNS COOKED INC. and 738 NORTH WELLS BUILDING LLC,
respectfully request that this Court enter an Order transferring this matter and the cases listed
above to Milton I. Shadur or another judge selected by the Executive Committee pursuant to
Local Rule 40.4, and for any further and other relief that this Court deems just and appropriate
under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
KARYNS COOKED INC. and
NORTH WELLS BUILDING LLC,
Defendants,
738
By: ___/s/ Olga S. Dmytriyeva___________

One of Their Attorneys
Olga S. Dmytriyeva, Esq.
Alexander N. Loftus, Esq.
VOELKER LITIGATION GROUP
311 W. Superior Street, Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60654
[email protected]
[email protected]
(T): (312) 870-5432
(F): (312) 870-5431
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, hereby certifies that on September 2, 2015, a copy of the
foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system that will notify all the
parties who are registered with the CM/ECF electronically.
___/s/ Olga S. Dmytriyeva___________

Franklin Jr. v. Karyn's Cooked Inc. Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Franklin Jr. v. Karyn's Cooked Inc. Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Franklin Jr. v. Karyn's Cooked Inc. Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:15-cv-07716 Document #: 6 Filed: 09/02/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 1:15-cv-07716

MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 40.41

1:15-cv-03800 Mapp v. City Colleges of Chicago, et al, filed 04/30/15

1:15-cv-04197 Mizerk v. Kebritchi, et al, filed 05/12/15

1:15-cv-04221 Franklin v. Huron Street Associates LLC, et al, filed 05/13/15

1:15-cv-04249 Mizerk v. Chicago Cafe, Inc., et al, filed 05/14/15

1:15-cv-04251 Franklin v. Brett's Kitchen, Inc., et al, filed 05/14/15

Case: 1:15-cv-07716 Document #: 6 Filed: 09/02/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:21

1:15-cv-06681 Davis v. Albany Plaza LLC, et al, filed 07/30/15

1:15-cv-06780 Franklin Jr. v Lago Inc, et al, filed 08/03/15

1:15-cv-07131 Mizerk v. LaSalle Flowers, Inc,. et al, filed 08/14/15

1:15-cv-07334 Davis v. Dental Experts, LLC, et al, filed 08/21/15

1:15-cv-07335 Davis v. Royal Dental La Villita P.C., et al, filed 08/21/15

1:15-cv-07336 Davis v. Guerrero LP, Inc., et al, filed 08/21/15

1:15-cv-07337 Berry v. E and E Holdings, Inc., et al, filed 08/21/15

The plaintiff in case numbers 1:15-cv-04197, 1:15-cv-04249, and 1:15-cv-07131

The Local Rule 40.4 controlling reassignment provides in pertinent part:

Case: 1:15-cv-07716 Document #: 6 Filed: 09/02/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:22

(3) the cases grow out of the same transaction or occurrence; or

standing and actually attempted to visit the establishments they sued.

whether the Defendants were actually compliant with the ADA.

if there is a violation and his plaintiff has standing.

Case: 1:15-cv-07716 Document #: 6 Filed: 09/02/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:23

By: ___/s/ Olga S. Dmytriyeva___________

You might also like

By: _/s/ Olga S. Dmytriyeva_________