IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MARIA LUIS, )

LUCY GOMEZ, )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) 12 CV 2922

)

SMITH PARTNERS & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ) PLAINTIFFS DEMAND

SMITH REO PROPERTIES ) TRIAL BY JURY

COYA SMITH, )

ANDY HORN, )

Defendants. )

Plaintiffs MARIA LUIS and LUCY GOMEZ, by and through their attorneys, ARNOLD KAPLAN,

CHARLES SILVERMAN, and ERICA CHIPPI, of KAPLAN SILVERMAN LLC, and JONATHAN LUBIN, of 

the LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN LUBIN, and Complain of Smith PARTNERS & ASSOCIATES, LTD.,

SMITH REO PROPERTIES, COYA SMITH, and ANDY HORN, stating:

Introduction

1. This is an action brought pursuant to Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair

Housing Act), as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq; the 

Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et. seq., and 

under state and municipal laws.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. Plaintiffs seek damage and equitable relief against Defendants.

3. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, over all claims bright 

pursuant to federal statute, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1267, over all claims arising under state laws and 

municipal ordinances.

4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) in that all Defendants are is a residents of the 

Northern District of Illinois. 

Parties

5. Maria Luis and Lucy Gomez are residents of the property located at 5818 N. Spaulding, 

Chicago, IL (“Property”).

6. Smith Partners and Associates, Ltd., (“Smith Partners”) is a corporation that owns and 

manages properties, including residential properties that have been the subject of foreclosure 

actions, and “short sales.” It operates under the assumed name of Smith REO Properties (“Smith 

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1
REO”). On information and belief, Smith Partners and Associates, Ltd., is owned and operated by 

Coya Smith, who also serves as the corporation’s registered agent. 

7. Andy Horn is an agent of Smith Partners and Associates, Ltd., and at all times relevant to 

this Complaint was acting within the scope of his agency. 

Factual Allegations Common to All Claims

8. Defendant owns and, at all relevant times, managed the property. Defendant began to 

manage the property after it was acquired by a financial institution in a mortgage foreclosure 

proceeding.

9. At no time have any proceedings been instituted in any court of law, including Court of 

Cook County, Illinois, to evict Plaintiffs the property. No action seeking forcible entry and detainer 

has been filed. Plaintiffs were never given proper notice, nor was proper notice even attempted, that 

would allow Defendants to proceed on either an eviction or a forcible entry and detainer action.

10. Beginning in the Winter of 2010, Defendants began a campaign of threats and harassment 

intending to force Plaintiffs to leave the property. 

11. In the Winter of 2010, Defendants illegally entered the basement of the property, and 

removed the furnace. As a result, the property’s pipes froze, and water began to fill the basement. 

Plaintiffs had to replace the furnace at that at their own expense

12. In November, 2010, Defendants illegally placed a padlock on property’s front door, 

preventing Plaintiffs’ entry into their own residence.

13. In the Spring of 2011, Defendants banged on the windows, banged on the doors, and 

removed letters from the mailbox at the property that were addressed to Plaintiffs.

14. In May of 2011, Defendants once again entered the basement of the property, and removed 

most of the contents thereof. Among the things removed from the basement was the furnace, 

which had previously been paid for by Plaintiffs. They also turned off the water heater, and locked 

the basement entirely so that Plaintiffs were not able to access the basement in order to restore the 

furnace or water heater. As a result, Plaintiffs were forced to use electrical heating throughout the 

following Winter.

15. In March, 2012, Defendants broke the locks to the front doors of each of the apartments in 

the property.

16. In August, 2011, the electricity and the water were both disconnected at the request of Andy 

Horn. 

17. In affecting the shutting off of the electricity and water, Horn entered the property illegally, 

threatened Plaintiffs, and struck Plaintiff Lucy Gomez.

18. On information and belief, each of these actions was taken by Andy Horn.

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2
19. On information and belief, Andy Horn was acting at the request and the behest of Coya 

Smith, acting then as the owner and operator of Smith Partners and Smith REO.

20. On April 17, 2012, the water at the property was turned off by the City due to non-payment 

of the water bill by Defendants. Plaintiffs were told that they were not permitted to pay the bill in 

the stead of the Defendants. 

Claim I

Federal Housing Act

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-20 as if stated herein in full.

21. The properties at issue in this case are dwellings within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 3602(b).

22. For many years Smith Partners and Smith REO, pursuant to the policy of their owner and 

operator Coya Smith have subjected Hispanic tenants of their properties to extensive, continuous, 

treatment by employing a continual pattern of threats and intimidating behavior toward them in lieu

of seeking actions, including evictions or forcible detainer actions, in state court.

23. It is believed that Defendants target Hispanics in part because they believe that Hispanics 

will be unwilling to defend themselves in a court of law

24. The actions Complained of herein were engaged in as part of a pattern or practice of 

discrimination on the basis of race or national origin against persons in the rental of dwellings in 

violation of the Fair Housing Act.

25. Defendant has implemented this pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the Fair

Housing Act, among other ways, by:

a. Discriminating against persons in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the rental 

of a dwelling because of race or national origin, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3604(b);

b. Coercing, intimidating, threatening, and/or interfering with tenants in the exercise 

or enjoyment of rights granted and protected by Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act, as 

amended, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 3617.

26. The conduct Complained of constitutes:

a. A pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of rights secured by Title 

VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 

1988, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.; and

b. A denial to a group of persons of rights granted by Title VIII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et 

seq., which denial raises an issue of general public importance.

27. There are numerous victims of defendant's discriminatory actions and practices, including 

Plaintiffs, all former Hispanic tenants of properties owned and managed by the defendant. These 

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3
victims are aggrieved persons as defined in 42 U.S.C. 3602(i). These victims have suffered damages 

as a result of the defendant's conduct as described in ¶16.

28. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful, and taken in disregard for the rights of others.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter an ORDER:

1. For declaratory relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1)

a. Declaring that the discriminatory practices of defendant violate the Fair Housing

Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.;

2. For injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1) enjoining the defendant from:

a. Discriminating against any person in violation of the Fair Housing Act, including 

(1) discriminating on account of race, national origin against any person in any aspect of the 

rental of a dwelling, and (2) interfering with or threatening to take any action against any 

person in the exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or protected by the Fair Housing Act; 

and

b. Failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary (1) to 

restore, as nearly as practicable, the victims of the defendant's past unlawful practices to the 

position they would have been in but for the discriminatory conduct; and (2) to notify 

residents of his rental properties as well as the public that they will be operated in a manner 

so as not to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin.

3. Awarding such monetary relief as would fully compensate each identifiable victim of 

defendant's discriminatory housing practices for injuries caused by the defendant's discriminatory 

conduct, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1);

4. Awarding punitive damages to each identifiable victim of defendant's discriminatory housing 

practices, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c)(1)and

5. Awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §813(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 

3613(c)(2).

6. Plaintiff further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice and equity may 

require.

Count II

Civil RICO

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 – 28 as if state herein in full.

29. Under Title18, United States Code, Section 1962(c) it is “unlawful for any person employed 

by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign 

commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise affairs 

through a pattern of racketeering activity...”

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4
30. Each of the individual Defendant is a “person” as defined in Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 1961(3) and used in Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(c).

31. Smith Partners and Smith REO are employed as a racketeering “enterprise” as defined in 

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1961(4) and used in Title 18, United States Code, Section 

1962(c).

32. Defendants employ Smith Partners and Smith REO as a racketeering enterprise to avoid the 

judicial system altogether, by forcing (mostly Hispanic) tenants in properties acquired through 

foreclosure actions or short-sales to vacate those properties, by illegally threatening them and 

interfering with said properties. 

33. The disposition of residential properties in Cook County, IL, and the illegal interference with 

tenants’ rights in their properties, has an effect on interstate commerce.

34. It is believed that Defendants have behaved towards many other residents of many other 

properties acquired in mortgage foreclosure actions, or short-sales, in a manner similar to the 

manner in which they have behaved towards Plaintiffs.

35. A pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Sections 

1961(1) and 1961(5), consists of the following acts:

Racketeering Act #1: 

Winter 2010 Tresspass and Robbery

36. As set forth in paragraph 11, Defendants violated the following criminal statutes:

a. 18 U.S.C. § 1951, Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence: “Whoever 

in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce [...] by robbery or extortion or 

attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to [...] property in 

furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined 

under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” The robbery of a 

furnace during the Winter months in Chicago, IL constituted an attempt to affect Plaintiffs’ 

rights in their dwelling (that is, to scare and force Plaintiffs out of their dwelling). 

Defendants Actions constituted outright robbery, and a form of extortion given the implied 

threat that if Plaintiffs did not vacate, their property would continue to be so threatened 

(Defendants made good on their implied threat, and continue to do so up until the time of 

filing of this Complaint). Their actions also constituted a physical violence to Plaintiffs’ 

property, which resulted in thousands of dollars worth of damage – both in terms of 

replacing the furnace, and in dealing with the effects of the property’s pipes freezing, and 

water filling the basement. 

b. 720 ILCS § 5/12-6, Intimidation: “A person commits intimidation when, with 

intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she 

communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without 

lawful authority any of the following acts: (1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened 

or any other person or on property; [...] (b) Sentence. Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for 

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5
which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and 

not more than 10 years.” Defendants committed intimidation in that the act of breaking into 

the basement, and stealing the furnace was meant to convey a threat that refusal on the part 

of Plaintiffs to leave the property would be met with more of the same. Further, Defendants 

committed intimidation in that the act of breaking into the basement and stealing the 

furnace actually did convey the threat that if Plaintiffs did not leave the property, they would 

be subjected a Chicago Winter without the benefit of a method to adequately provide heat to 

their dwelling. 

c. 720 ILCS § 5/18-1, Robbery: “(a) A person commits robbery when he or she takes 

property, except a motor vehicle covered by Section 18-3 or 18-4, from the person or 

presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force. (b) 

Sentence. Robbery is a Class 2 felony.” Defendants committed robbery in that they entered 

the property of Plaintiffs without cause or justification, and took the furnace by force.

Racketeering Act #2

Illegally Padlocking the Property’s Door

37. As set forth in paragraph 12, Defendants violated the following criminal statutes:

a. 720 ILCS § 5/12-6, Intimidation: “A person commits intimidation when, with 

intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she 

communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without 

lawful authority any of the following acts: (1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened 

or any other person or on property; [...] (b) Sentence. Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for 

which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and 

not more than 10 years.” Defendants committed intimidation in that the act of padlocking 

the door constituted a threat that if Plaintiffs did not leave the property willingly, they could 

expect further illegal trespasses against them to take place. 

Racketeering Act #3

Banging on the windows and doors

38. As set forth in paragraph 13, Defendants violated the following criminal statutes:

a. 720 ILCS § 5/12-6, Intimidation: “A person commits intimidation when, with 

intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she 

communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without 

lawful authority any of the following acts: (1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened 

or any other person or on property; [...] (b) Sentence. Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for 

which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and 

not more than 10 years.” Defendants committed intimidation in that the act of banging on 

the windows and doors communicated that if Plaintiffs did not leave the property willingly, 

they could expect further illegal trespasses against them to take place. 

Racketeering Act #4

Stealing Mail from Plaintiffs’ Mailbox

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6
39. As set forth in paragraph 13, Defendants violated the following criminal statutes:

a. 720 ILCS § 5/12-6, Intimidation: “A person commits intimidation when, with 

intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she 

communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without 

lawful authority any of the following acts: (1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened 

or any other person or on property; [...] (b) Sentence. Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for 

which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and 

not more than 10 years.” Defendants committed intimidation in that the act stealing 

Plaintiffs’ mail constituted a threat that if Plaintiffs did not leave the property willingly, they 

could expect further illegal trespasses against them to take place. 

b. 720 ILCS § 5/18-1, Robbery: “(a) A person commits robbery when he or she 

takes property, except a motor vehicle covered by Section 18-3 or 18-4, from the person or 

presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force. (b) 

Sentence. Robbery is a Class 2 felony.” Defendants committed robbery in that they entered 

the property of Plaintiffs without cause or justification, and stole mail not belonging to 

them.

c. 18 U.S.C. § 1702, Obstruction of Correspondence: “Whoever takes any letter, 

postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, 

or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized 

depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the 

person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into 

the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall 

be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” Defendants 

removed pieces of mail from Plaintiffs’ mailbox. 

Racketeering Act #5

May 2011 Tresspass and Robbery

40. As set forth in paragraph 14, Defendants violated the following criminal statutes:

a. 18 U.S.C. § 1951, Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence: “Whoever 

in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce [...] by robbery or extortion or 

attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to [...] property in 

furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined 

under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” The robbery of a 

furnace during the Winter months in Chicago, IL constituted an attempt to affect Plaintiffs’ 

rights in their dwelling (that is, to scare and force Plaintiffs out of their dwelling). 

Defendants Actions constituted outright robbery, and a form of extortion given the implied 

and continuing threat that if Plaintiffs did not vacate, their property would continue to be so 

threatened (Defendants made good on their implied threat, and continue to do so up until 

the time of filing of this Complaint). Their actions also constituted a physical violence to 

Plaintiffs’ property, which resulted in thousands of dollars worth of damage. This conduct 

also carried the threat that unless Plaintiffs vacated the property, they would, yet again, be 

subjected to a Chicago Winter without adequate heating. Indeed, this Winter, Plaintiffs were 

forced to resort to electric heaters to keep warm.

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7
b. 720 ILCS § 5/12-6, Intimidation: “A person commits intimidation when, with 

intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she 

communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without 

lawful authority any of the following acts: (1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened 

or any other person or on property; [...] (b) Sentence. Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for 

which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and 

not more than 10 years.” Defendants committed intimidation in that the act of breaking into 

the basement, and stealing the furnace, and turning off the water heater, was meant to 

convey a threat that refusal on the part of Plaintiffs to leave the property would be met with 

more of the same. Further, Defendants committed intimidation in that the act of breaking 

into the basement and stealing the furnace actually did convey the threat that if Plaintiffs did 

not leave the property, they would be subjected a Chicago Winter without the benefit of a 

method to adequately provide heat to their dwelling. 

c. 720 ILCS § 5/18-1, Robbery: “(a) A person commits robbery when he or she takes 

property, except a motor vehicle covered by Section 18-3 or 18-4, from the person or 

presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force. (b) 

Sentence. Robbery is a Class 2 felony.” Defendants committed robbery in that they entered 

the property of Plaintiffs without cause or justification, and took the furnace by force.

Racketeering Act #6

Breaking the locks to the front doors

41. As set forth in paragraph 15, Defendants violated the following criminal statutes:

a. 720 ILCS § 5/12-6, Intimidation: “A person commits intimidation when, with 

intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she 

communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without 

lawful authority any of the following acts: (1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened 

or any other person or on property; [...] (b) Sentence. Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for 

which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and 

not more than 10 years.” Defendants effectively sent the message to Plaintiff that if they did 

not leave the property, they would further be unable to protect their property from robbers 

and thieves, or from Defendants themselves. 

b. 720 ILCS § 5/18-1, Robbery: “(a) A person commits robbery when he or she 

takes property, except a motor vehicle covered by Section 18-3 or 18-4, from the person or 

presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force. (b) 

Sentence. Robbery is a Class 2 felony.” Defendants committed robbery in that they entered 

the property of Plaintiffs without cause or justification, and took the furnace by force.” 

Defendants physically deprived Plaintiffs of the locks to their doors through the use of 

force.

Racketeering Act #7

Disconnecting the electricity and water

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
42. As set forth in paragraph 16, Defendants violated the following criminal statutes:

a. 720 ILCS § 5/12-6, Intimidation: “A person commits intimidation when, with 

intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she 

communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without 

lawful authority any of the following acts: (1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened 

or any other person or on property; [...] (b) Sentence. Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for 

which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and 

not more than 10 years.” Defendants effectively sent the message to Plaintiff that if they did 

not leave the property, they would find themselves without basic necessities like electricity 

and water. 

Racketeering Act #8

Battery to Lucy Gomez

43. As set forth in paragraph 16, Defendants violated the following criminal statutes:

a. 18 U.S.C. § 1951, Interference with Commerce by Threats or Violence: “Whoever 

in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce [...] by robbery or extortion or 

attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to [...] property in 

furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined 

under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” The battery against Lucy 

Gomez was intended, through actual physical force, to intimidate Plaintiffs into vacating the 

property.

b. 720 ILCS § 5/12-6, Intimidation: “A person commits intimidation when, with 

intent to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, he or she 

communicates to another, directly or indirectly by any means, a threat to perform without 

lawful authority any of the following acts: (1) Inflict physical harm on the person threatened 

or any other person or on property; [...] (b) Sentence. Intimidation is a Class 3 felony for 

which an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 2 years and 

not more than 10 years.” The battery against Lucy Gomez was intended, through actual 

physical force, to intimidate Plaintiffs into vacating the property.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter an Order:

1. Granting an entry of judgment for the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for the stated 

violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et. seq., 

2. Award Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees and cost of suit;

3. Award Plaintiff treble damages for violation of RICO under 18 U.S.C. § 1964;

4. Award Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages where applicable; and

5. Grant such other and further relief, as this Court deems equitable and just. 

Count III

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9
Trespass to Chattel

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 – 43 as if state herein in full.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter an Order finding Defendants liable 

for the trespass, and continued trespass, to Plaintiffs real and personal property, and awarding 

Plaintiff whatever damages they have sustained as a result of Defendants, and whatever other relief 

this Honorable Court deems just and equitable.

Count IV

Battery

Plaintiff Lucy Gomez only

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 – 42 as if state herein in full.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter an Order finding Defendants liable 

for battery, and awarding Plaintiff whatever damages they have sustained as a result of Defendants, 

and whatever other relief this Honorable Court deems just and equitable.

Count V

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 – 43 as if state herein in full.

44. The conduct to which Defendants subjected Plaintiffs was objectively outrageous.

45. Plaintiffs suffered extreme emotional distress as a result of this conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter an Order finding Defendants liable 

for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and awarding Plaintiff whatever damages they have 

sustained as a result of Defendants, and whatever other relief this Honorable Court deems just and 

equitable

Count VI

Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, §5-12-160

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 – 45 as if state herein in full.

46. RLTO section 5-12-160 states, “It is unlawful for any landlord or any person acting at his 

direction knowingly to oust or dispossess or threaten or attempt to oust or dispossess any tenant 

from a dwelling unit without authority of law, by plugging, changing, adding or removing any lock or 

latching device; or by blocking any entrance into said unit; or by removing any door or window from 

said unit; or by interfering with the services to said unit; including but not limited to electricity, gas, 

hot or cold water, plumbing, heat or telephone service; or by removing a tenant's personal property 

from said unit; or by the removal or incapacitating of appliances or fixtures, except for the purpose 

of making necessary repairs; or by the use or threat of force, violence or injury to a tenant's person 

or property; or by any act rendering a dwelling unit or any part thereof or any personal property 

located therein inaccessible or uninhabitable.”

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10
47. Defendant does not reside at the Unit, and did not so reside at the time of the tenancy 

complained-of herein.

48. Defendant does not reside at another Unit within the building, and did not so reside at the 

time of the tenancy complained-of herein.

49. Defendants fit the definition of “landlord” as delineated in the RLTO.

50. The property is subject to the laws and regulations of the Chicago Residential Landlord 

Tenant Ordinance (“RLTO”).

51. Defendants have, in sum, made numerous illegal threats and unlawful demands for 

possession through the use of intimidation and threat of force, and other actions depriving 

Complainants of utilities, and of the enjoyment of their property.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court enter an ORDER:

1. Awarding such monetary relief of $200.00, but nor more than $500.00, and each day that 

such violation shall occur or continue;

2. Award an amount equal to not more than two months' rent or twice the actual damages 

sustained by Plaintiffs, whichever is greater;

3. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees.

4. Award whatever other relief this Honorable Court deems just and equitable.

Count VII

Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 – 51 as if state herein in full.

52. The activities Complained of are ongoing, and have a real time effect on Plaintiffs.

53. No amount of money damages could be as complete and final a remedy as an injunction 

requiring Defendants to cease and desist their illegal behavior. Plaintiff has no adequate legal remedy 

against the Defendants’ threatened and ongoing bad actions. No amount of money damages could 

be as clear, complete, practical, efficient, equitable and just as an injunction. Unless enjoined, 

Defendants will – as a matter of law – cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff. 

54. Equity and a balancing of the hardships favors Plaintiffs and not Defendants because 

Defendants are currently engaged in a campaign of illegal intimidation, in violation of state and 

federal laws, including criminal statutes. Plaintiffs, by contrast, have broken no law, and merely wish 

to be allowed to live in the property without Defendants’ interference, as is their right under the law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court enter an Order:

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11
1. Requiring Defendants to cease and desist their illegal behavior;

2. Ensure that essentials like hot and cold water, and central heating, are not obstructed, and 

that Plaintiffs are not prevented from enjoying such in the property; and

3. Any other relief that this Court deems just and equitable. 

Respectfully Submitted by:

s/Jonathan Lubin

Jonathan Lubin

39 S. LaSalle Street

Suite 1400

Chicago, IL 60603

(773) 954-2608

Arnold Kaplan

Charles Silverman

Erica Chippi

Kaplan Silverman LLC

20 North Clark Street

Suite 1725

Chicago, IL 60602

Case: 1:12-cv-02922 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12