individual. Thus, it alleges every element of defamation and can
withstand a motion to dismiss under 12(b) (6).
The motion to amend the complaint is GranTep. The motion to

dismiss the complaint is DENIED.

EN ORDER;
o Buhl
Elaine E. Bucklo

United States District Judge

Dated: april [57, 2003



the plaintiff was restrained or arrested by the defendants, and
that the defendant acted without having reasonable grounds to
believe that an offense was committed by the plaintiff.” Meerbrey
v. Marshall Field & Co., 564 N.E.2d 1222, 1231 (1990). Marriott’s
motion to dismiss correctly points out that the original complaint
failed to allege the second element. A plaintiff ordinarily may
plead conclusions, and need not allege all relevant facts with
particularity. Higgs v. Carter, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2002).
However, there is no need to address the question of whether the
original complaint was adequate under this standard. The amended
complaint alleges every element of the cause of action, and clearly
states a claim for unlawful restraint.

Count II. The elements of defamation are: (1) a defamatory
assertion of fact about the plaintiff; (2) publication; and (3)
injury to a plaintiff’s reputation. Chisholm v. Foothill Capital
Corp., 3 F. Supp. 2d 925, 938 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (Gettleman, J.).
Words are defamatory per se if they “impute the commission of a
criminal offense.” Id. Marriott states that Count II of the
original complaint fails to state a claim because it does not
allege that the plaintiffs’ reputations were injured or specify to
whom the allegations were published. Once again, it is not
necessary to decide whether the original complaint was sufficient.
The amended complaint does state that the plaintiffs’ reputations

were injured and that publication was made to a particular



Minute Orde Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

vente Magistrate Judge Elaine E. Bucklo “uae hnigued Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 C 422 DATE 4/15/2003
CASE Slateski, et al. vs. Marriott International
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented,]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) a Brief in support of motion due____.
(3) o Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) im] Ruling/Hearing on setfor___—_at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—ssetfor_——at,
(6) im} Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—s_at__
() o Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—_at.
(8) Qa [Bench/Jury trial) [Hearing] held/continuedto__at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
QFRCP4(m) (Ci Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a\(1) © FRCP41(a)(2).
ao Mf [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order denying defendant’s motion to

dismiss and granting plaintiffs’ request to amend the complaint. Ruling set for 4/18/03 is vacated.

(il) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
2

No notices required,

number of notices.
o } Notices mailed by judge’s staff. R16 9
Notified counsel by telephone. dae 200.

Docketing to mall notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Lungs yayisia’s'n docking dey nia

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. oyone
Nad Ww 4115/2003
co 25 ts Sh yap date mailed notice
MP deputy’s "2? MPI
initials -
Date/time received in >
central Clerk's Office tasting deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MELANIE SALATESKI AND LORI
MOTYCHKA,
Plaintiffs,

v.
No. 03 C 422

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Defendant.

ECKETED

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER APR 1 6 2003

On June 16, 2002, plaintiffs Melanie Salateski and Lori
Motychka, residents of Saskatchewan, Canada, checked into the
Chicago Marriott Hotel O’Hare, owned by the defendant, Marriott
International, Inc. (“Marriott”), a Delaware corporation. The
following evening, while still guests of the hotel, the plaintiffs
patronized the hotel’s Champions restaurant. According to the
complaint, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Marriott employee Jermaine
Mack approached the plaintiffs, identified himself as a security
guard, and requested that the two women accompany him to a nearby
windowless office, which was occupied by another Marriott employee.
Once inside the office, Mr. Mack repeatedly accused the women of
illegally soliciting sex in the restaurant, and threatened that if
they did not admit that they were prostitutes, he would have them
arrested. Despite their denials, Mr. Mack required Ms. Salateski

and Ms. Motychka to sign documents stating that they would be

immediately arrested if they ever entered a Marriott hotel again.



He also photographed them and required them to tender their
driver’s licenses for him to photocopy. Believing that they would
not be permitted to leave the office if they did not comply, the
women cooperated with Mr. Mack’s demands. Mr. Mack then informed
the plaintiffs that they were under “house arrest,” and that they
could not leave their hotel room until they left for the airport
the following morning. Again, the plaintiffs complied.

Ms. Salateski and Ms. Motychka filed this suit in the Circuit
Court of Illinois, alleging unlawful restraint and defamation.
Marriott removed the case to this court based on the diversity of
citizenship between the parties and now moves to dismiss both
counts pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6). The plaintiffs respond with a
motion to amend their complaint. I deny the motion to dismiss and
grant the motion to amend.

Motion to amend. Leave to amend a complaint should be freely
given absent undue delay or prejudice to the opposing party, Park
v. City of Chicago, 297 F.3d 606, 612 (7th Cir. 2002). The motion
to amend was submitted promptly, and there is no indication that
prejudice would result from allowing amendment here. Thus, I am
granting the motion to amend.

Count I. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, I accept the
allegations of the complaint as true. Hishon v. King & Spaulding,
467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The elements of a cause of action for

unlawful restraint (formerly called false imprisonment) are “that