-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Quentin Bullock and Jack Reid, 

individually and on behalf of a 

class, 

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

-vs- ) No. 04 CV 1051

)

Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook 

County in his official capacity 

and Cook County,

)

)

)

(Judge Bucklo)

)

. Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

OF APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Nearly sixty thousand classmembers have received notice of the 

proposed settlement of this case. Not a single class member has objected to any portion of the settlement. For the reasons set out below, 

the Court should approve the proposed settlement.1

I. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION

This action began on February 11, 2004, with the filing of a complaint by the original plaintiff Quentin Bullock. Thereafter, Jack Reid 

was added to the case as a named plaintiff. 

 1 Class counsel, with the agreement of defendants, requests that the Court extend to 

April 15, 2011 the time in which class members may submit claims. 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:9467
-2-

On November 19, 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for 

class certification. After completing discovery, the parties cross-moved 

for summary judgment and on July 30, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff class with respect to all claims 

except the unreasonable delay claim. Defendants, however, moved for 

reconsideration, and on February 27, 2009, the Court vacated its grant 

of summary judgment. 

Defendants thereafter prosecuted an interlocutory appeal on Eleventh Amendment issues. During the pendency of the appeal, counsel 

for the parties participated in the Settlement Conference Program of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. With the 

assistance of Joel N. Shapiro, Senior Conference Attorney, counsel for 

the parties discussed the outline of a proposed resolution of this case. 

These discussions came to fruition after the appeal had been fully 

briefed and argued but before decision.

II. The Proposed Settlement

The proposed settlement (attached as Exhibit 1), is part of a 

global resolution of three pending cases, each challenging different 

strip search policies at the Cook County Jail. Young v. County of Cook, 

No. 06 CV 552, in which the attorneys in this case were not involved, 

challenged the intake strip search to the jail; Streeter v. Sheriff, 08 CV 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 2 of 28 PageID #:9468
-3-

732, involved the way in which detainees were strip-searched upon returning from court to Division 5; this case involves the strip search of 

male detainees after a judge has dismissed all pending charges 

The settlement in Young was approved by Judge Kennelly on 

March 4, 2011. The settlement in Streeter was approved by Judge 

Coleman on March 14, 2011.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement in this case, defendants 

will establish a “settlement fund” of one million four hundred thousand 

dollars ($1,400,000) for distribution to unnamed class members. The 

settlement also incorporates an agreement, subject to the approval of 

the Court, concerning incentive awards for the two named plaintiffs.

Under the settlement agreement, each class member will receive 

an aliquot share of the settlement fund, to a maximum of two hundred 

dollars, subject to a set off of one hundred dollars if the class member 

also received an award in the Young case. To date, about 5000 claims 

have been submitted. Class counsel believes that there will be less than 

6000 claims, and that each class member who submits a timely claim 

will receive his full share.

The settlement agreement provides that, subject to the approval 

of the Court, each of the two named plaintiffs will receive an incentive 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 3 of 28 PageID #:9469
-4-

award.2 “Incentive awards are fairly typical in class action cases.” Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2009). An 

incentive award “is appropriate if it is necessary to induce an individual to participate in the suit,” Cook v. Niedert, 142 F.3d 1004, 1016 (7th 

Cir. 1998). The proposed incentive awards reflect the service that each 

named plaintiff provided to the class; each award is of comparable 

magnitude to incentive awards in other class actions.3

The settlement agreement also provides that attorneys’ fees and 

expenses will be paid by defendant Cook County. Counsel for the parties negotiated the settlement in this case as part of a global resolution

of three pending strip-search class actions; counsel negotiated compensation for fees and expenses after they had reached full agreement on 

the monetary relief for the class. Fees and expenses in Streeter are included in the fees and expenses sought in this case.

To secure the settlement in this case and in Streeter, attorneys 

Morrissey and Fairley invested a total of 4,765 hours, for a lodestar of 

 2 The incentive award is to be paid to each named plaintiff without any deduction for 

attorneys' fees or costs. Each named plaintiff will, subject to the approval of the 

Court, receive $25,000.

3 The three class representatives in Calvin v. Will County, 03 CV 3086, each received 

a $25,000 incentive award, as did the three class representatives in Jackson v. Sheriff, N.D.Ill., 06 CV 493, and Phipps v. Sheriff, 07 CV 3889. The incentive awards in 

Young v. County of Cook, 06 CV 552, ranged from $10,000 to $25,000. The incentive 

award in Streeter v. Sheriff, 08 CV 732 was $10,000 to each named plaintiff.

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 4 of 28 PageID #:9470
-5-

$1,960,775. Class counsel were assisted in the appeal, in settlement 

negotiations, and in Streeter, by attorney Kenneth N. Flaxman, who 

expended 171 hours. Class counsel also utilized the services of a paralegal, Carrie Williams, who worked a total of 263 hours. The lodestar

for the attorney and paralegal time in this case and Streeter is 

$2,693,300.4 As part of the settlement, counsel agreed to cap their fees 

at $2,100,000 and defendants agreed, subject to the approval of the 

Court, to pay this amount. Defendants have also agreed to reimburse 

class counsel for $159,303.88 in out of pocket expenses.

 4 The lodestar calculations are as follows:

Morrissey and Farley 4765 hours $535/hour $2,549,275

Flaxman 171 hours $650/hour $111,150

Williams 263 hours $125/hour $32,875

TOTAL $2,693,300

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 5 of 28 PageID #:9471
-6-

III. Standards for Approving the Settlement of a

Class Action

The standards for approving the settlement of a class action were 

summarized by the Seventh Circuit in Synfuel Technologies, Inc. v. 

DHL Express (USA), Inc. 463 F.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2006):

In order to evaluate the fairness of a settlement, a district 

court must consider the strength of plaintiffs' case compared to the amount of defendants' settlement offer, an assessment of the likely complexity, length and expense of the 

litigation, an evaluation of the amount of opposition to settlement among affected parties, the opinion of competent 

counsel, and the stage of the proceedings and the amount of 

discovery completed at the time of settlement. [citation 

omitted]

The most important factor relevant to the fairness of a class 

action settlement is the first one listed: the strength of 

plaintiff's case on the merits balanced against the amount 

offered in the settlement. [citation omitted]

In addition to considering the strength of plaintiffs’ case on the 

merits and the monetary payment to each class member, “district 

judges presiding over proposed class settlements are expected to give 

careful scrutiny to the terms of proposed settlements in order to make 

sure that class counsel are behaving as honest fiduciaries for the class 

as a whole because class actions are rife with potential conflicts of interest between class counsel and class members.” (citations omitted) 

Mirfasihi v. Fleet Mortg. Corp. 450 F.3d 745, 748 (7th Cir. 2006).

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 6 of 28 PageID #:9472
-7-

The settlement in this case is a reasonable resolution of this class 

action and should be approved by the Court. No one has objected to the 

proposed settlement. The parties negotiated the settlement after fully 

preparing for trial and after all parties were aware of the strengths and 

weaknesses of their respective positions. Class counsel, who fully support the proposed settlement, are experienced in these matters:

Attorney Morrissey was admitted to practice in 1979. Morrissey 

was the principal attorney in Gary v. Sheahan, No. 96 C 7294, N.D.Ill. 

(class action challenging strip search procedures at the Cook County 

Jail) and Hvorcik v. Sheahan, 870 F.Supp. 864 (N.D.Ill. 1994) (class action challenging computerization of warrant information). Morrissey is 

lead counsel in Bullock v. Dart, 599 F.Supp.2d 947 (N.D.Ill. 2009) (class 

action challenging strip procedures of persons released from the Cook 

County Jail). With Flaxman, Morrissey represented the class in Jackson v. Sheriff of Cook County, N.D.Ill. No. 06 C 493 (class action challenging mandatory STD testing). Morrissey (with Flaxman), presently 

represents the class in Parish v. Sheriff of Cook County, N.D.Ill., No. 

07 C 4369 (denial of prescription medication to detainees at the Cook 

County Jail).

Attorney Farley was admitted to practice in 1979. Farley’s work 

in class action litigation includes co-counsel with Morrissey, in Gary v. 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 7 of 28 PageID #:9473
-8-

Sheahan. Farley represents the class in Hampe v. Hamos, 10-3121 

(N.D. Ill) (class action challenging the State of Illinois policy to substantially reduce medicaid funding to medically fragile persons when 

they turn 21 years of age).

Attorney Flaxman was admitted to practice in 1972. Flaxman’s 

work in class action litigation includes United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980) (class action challenging federal 

parole guidelines); Doe v. Calumet City, 128 F.R.D. 93 (N.D.Ill. 1989) 

(class action challenging strip search practice of Calumet City police 

department); Calvin v. Sheriff of Will County, 405 F.Supp.2d 933 

(N.D.Ill. 2005) (class action challenging strip search practice at Will 

County Jail). Flaxman has also argued nearly 150 federal appeals, including five cases in the United States Supreme Court.5

The proposed settlement represents a reasonable resolution of 

this case and should be approved by the Court.

 5 In addition to Geraghty, Flaxman argued Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (1978); Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996); Ricci v. Arlington Heights, cert dismissed as improvidently granted, 523 U.S. 613 (1998), and Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (207). 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 8 of 28 PageID #:9474
-9-

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons above stated, the Court should approve the proposed settlement and, as agreed to by defendants, extend to April 15, 

20110 the time in which class members may submit claims.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas G. Morrissey

Thomas G. Morrissey

ARDC #3125372

10249 South Western Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60643

(773) 233-7900

Robert H. Farley, Jr.

1155 S. Washington Street

Naperville, IL 60540

(630) 369-0103

attorneys for plaintiffs

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 9 of 28 PageID #:9475
Exhibit 1

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:9476
-1- 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Quentin Bullock and Jack Reid, 

individually and on behalf of a 

class, 

)

) 

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

-vs- ) No. 04 CV 1051

)

Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook 

County in his official capacity 

and Cook County,

)

) 

)

(Judge Bucklo)

)

. Defendants. )

CLASS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This settlement agreement is entered into by all parties to this 

action through their respective undersigned counsel to resolve all matters at issue in this action. 

RECITALS 

1. Nature of litigation. On February 12, 2004, plaintiffs 

filed the above captioned action, for themselves and all others similarly 

situated, in the United States District Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois alleging violations of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Title 42 

U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988. The plaintiffs allege that they were 

strip searched upon being returned to the jail for out-processing following a court ruling which warranted their release from Jail. 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:9477
-2- 

2. Class Certification. Pursuant to the Court's order of June 

15, 2005, the instant case is proceeding as a class action for: 

All male inmates who, on or after February 12, 2002, have been 

subjected to defendant’s policy and practice of strip searching a 

male inmate upon his return to the jail following a court appearance at which court appearance a specific case or charge against 

the inmate was dismissed when no other cases, charges, warrants 

or holds were pending against that inmate which warranted that 

inmate’s continued detention at the jail. 

3. Important Rulings. On July 30, 2008, the Court initially 

granted Plaintiffs summary judgment for liability with respect to the 

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment strip search claims and denied Defendants motion for summary judgment. On February 27, 2009, the 

Court granted Defendants motion for reconsideration and set aside its 

order granting summary judgment. 

4. Settlement Process. During the pendency of defendants’ 

appeal on Eleventh Amendment issues, counsel for the parties participated in the Settlement Conference Program of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. With the assistance of Joel N. 

Shapiro, Senior Conference Attorney, counsel for the parties discussed 

the outline of a proposed resolution of this case. Counsel thereafter renewed the settlement dialogue and agreed to a proposed settlement. 

This proposal was presented to the Cook County Board and approved 

by the Board after further negotiations between the parties. The proCase: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:9478
-3- 

posed settlement takes into account the risks, delay and difficulties involved in establishing a right to recovery in excess of that offered by 

this settlement and the likelihood that the litigation will be further 

protracted. 

5. Certification by Class Counsel: Class Counsel have investigated the facts and the applicable law and believe that it is in the 

best interest of the class to enter into this Settlement Agreement. 

6. Denial of Liability: Cook County and Sheriff vigorously 

contest each and every claim in the Action. Cook County and Sheriff 

maintain that they have consistently acted in accordance with governing laws at all times. Cook County and Sheriff vigorously deny all of 

the material allegations set forth in the Action. Cook County and Sheriff nonetheless have concluded that it is in their best interest that the 

Action be settled on the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation. Cook County reached this conclusion after considering the factual 

and legal issues in the Action, the substantial benefits of a final resolution of the Action, the expense that would be necessary to defend the 

Action through trial and any appeals that might be taken, the benefits 

of disposing of protracted and complex litigation, and the desire of Cook 

County to conduct its business unhampered by the distractions of continued litigation. 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:9479
-4- 

7. As a result of the foregoing, Cook County and Sheriff enter 

into this Stipulation without in any way acknowledging any fault, liability, or wrongdoing of any kind. Neither this Stipulation, nor any of 

its terms or provisions, nor any of the negotiations or proceedings connected with it, shall be construed as an admission or concession by 

Cook County or the Sheriff of the truth of any of the allegations made 

in the Action, or of any liability, fault, or wrongdoing of any kind whatsoever on the part of Cook County or the Sheriff, or shall be used as 

precedent in the future against Cook County and the Sheriff in any 

way. 

8. To the extent permitted by law, neither this Stipulation, 

nor any of its terms or provisions, nor any of the negotiations or proceedings connected with it, shall be offered as evidence or received in 

evidence in any pending or future civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding, to establish any liability or admission by Cook 

County and/or the Sheriff, except in any proceedings brought to enforce 

the Stipulation. 

9. Neither this Stipulation, nor any pleading or other paper 

related in any way to this Stipulation, nor any act or communication in 

the course of negotiating, implementing or seeking approval of this Stipulation, shall be deemed an admission by Cook County or the Sheriff 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:9480
-5- 

that certification of a class or subclass is appropriate in any other litigation, or otherwise shall preclude Cook County or the Sheriff from opposing or asserting any argument it may have with respect to certification of any class(es) or subclass(es) in any proceeding or this Action, or 

shall be used as precedent in any way as to any subsequent conduct of 

Cook County or the Sheriff except as set forth herein. 

DEFINITIONS 

10. In addition to the foregoing, the following terms shall have 

the meanings set forth below: 

a. “Cook County” means the County of Cook and/or any 

other successors, assigns or legal representatives thereof. 

b. “Sheriff” means the Sheriff of Cook County and/or any 

other successors, assigns or legal representatives thereof. 

c. “Class Counsel” means Thomas G. Morrissey, Ltd., 

12049 South Western Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60643, 

Robert H. Farley, Jr., Ltd., 1155 South Washington, Naperville, Illinois 60540 and Kenneth N. Flaxman, 200 

South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1240, Chicago, Il. 60604. 

d. “Class Member” means any person who is included within the definition of the class set out in paragraph 2 

above. 

e. The “Young litigation” means proceedings in Young v. 

County of Cook, No. 06-cv-552 (N.D. Ill). 

f. “Effective Date” means that date defined in paragraph 

25 of this Stipulation. 

g. “Final Settlement Hearing” means the hearing at which 

the Court is asked to grant final approval of this Settlement. 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:9481
-6- 

h. “Administrator” means class counsel. 

i. “Potential Class Members” means all persons who would 

qualify as part of the Class, prior to the date by which 

exclusion from the Class must be requested. 

j. “Released Claims” means and includes any and all Unknown Claims, known claims, and rights, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, debts, liens, contracts, liabilities, agreements, interest, costs, expenses or losses, 

for the acts alleged or which are or could have been alleged by the Named Plaintiffs or the Potential Class 

Members in this Action, or relate in any way whatsoever 

to this Action regarding strip searches of inmates after 

returning to the jail following a court appearance at 

which court appearance a specific case or charge against 

the inmate was dismissed when no other cases, charges, 

warrants or holds were pending against that inmate 

which warranted that inmate’s continued detention at 

jail and any cause of action or claim not filed to date in 

a court of law known or unknown on or before the date 

of this settlement that arose out of his incarceration at 

the jail. This release does not extend to any claim that 

may be, or has been, or will be, asserted on behalf of the 

“releasing person” as an unnamed class member in any 

other action. 

k. “Released Persons” means Cook County, Cook County’s 

counsel, the Sheriff of Cook County, the Sheriff’s counsel, and any of the Sheriff’s and Cook County’s past, 

present or future officers, agents, employees and/or independent contractors, and/or any other successors, assigns, or legal representatives thereof. 

RELIEF

11. Monetary Relief to the Class. To resolve all claims at issue in this case involving monetary relief to class members, other than 

attorneys' fees, expert and consulting witness fees and litigation costs, 

the parties have agreed that, as part of the consideration for this 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:9482
-7- 

Agreement, Defendants will establish a fund (the "Settlement Fund") in 

the amount of $1,400,000 (One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars). 

12. Incentive Payments. The named plaintiffs, Quentin Bullock and Jack Reid shall, subject to the approval of the Court and receipt by the County of Cook of properly executed IRS W-9 forms, receive 

an incentive award of $25,000. Such award shall be in lieu of, and not 

in addition to, any other awards to which the named plaintiffs may be 

entitled under this settlement. These incentive awards will be paid by 

defendants in addition to the funds that are part of the “Settlement 

Fund” 

13. Administration of the Settlement. An Administration 

Fund in the amount of $285,000 shall be established. The cost of administration of the settlement, including but not limited to notice to the 

class, establishing class membership, processing of claim forms, and 

providing a final list of claimants and addresses, shall be paid from this 

Administration Fund. For purposes of performing ministerial work in 

the administration of this settlement only, class counsel agrees to a 

rate of $200 per hour for the time of lawyers with three or more years 

of experience and $100 per hour for the time of legal assistants. Cook 

County shall reimburse counsel for administrative costs upon receipt of 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:9483
-8- 

itemized statements, with payments to be made within 30 days of receipt of said statement with a maximum amount not to exceed the Administrative fund of $285,000. Any portion of the $285,000 not expended by November 1, 2011 for administrative and notice costs and 

expenses from the Administration Fund shall revert to Cook County. 

14. Payments to Class Members: The parties, while recognizing that each class member may have a distinct claim for emotional 

damages, agree that the expense, uncertainly, and delay of providing 

each class member with an individual determination of damages outweighs the benefits of a distribution based on date of occurrence. Accordingly, the parties agree that each class member shall receive an 

award from the “Settlement Fund” not to exceed $200 (two hundred 

dollars). 

15. The Potential Young Setoff: Class members who were 

processed into the Jail on or after January 30, 2004 may be members of 

the plaintiff lass in the Young litigation, referred to in paragraph 10(e) 

above. Defendants may be entitled to a setoff of $100 for each class member if 

Defendants certify that the class member has been sent a legal notice to his last 

known address stating he is eligible to receive an award of $200 or more from the 

Young litigation. By way of illustration and not limitation, a class member who 

receives an award of $200 in Young shall receive an award of $100 in this case.

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:9484
-9- 

16. Each class member shall receive one award from the “Settlement Fund” even though he may have been subjected to more than 

one strip search. The actual amount to be paid to each class member 

will be determined within 60 days after expiration of the date for submission of claim forms. The total amount to be paid to class members, 

will not exceed $1,400,000 (One Million Four Hundred Thousand Dollars). If more than 7000 claims are submitted, each claimant shall receive an aliquot share of the settlement fund. If less than 7000 claims 

are submitted, the undistributed portion of the “Settlement Fund” designated by the Cook County Comptroller shall be held until November 

1, 2011 to allow payment of any claim submitted late with good cause 

shown. Good cause is defined as legally adequate and substantial 

grounds and not simply neglect. Any portion of the “Settlement Fund” 

remaining on November 2, 2011 shall revert to Cook County. 

17. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses: Attorneys’ fees and costs 

were not finally negotiated by Class Counsel and counsel for the Released Parties until after full agreement had been reached on the monetary relief for the class. Class counsel represented that the total 

amount of attorneys’ fees shall not exceed two million one hundred 

thousand dollars and that counsel have expended $159,303.88 as costs. 

Cook County has agreed not to contest any request by Class Counsel for 

5Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:9485
-10- 

an award of fees not to exceed two million one hundred thousand dollars and costs in the amount previously stated, and agrees that it will

pay 3/4ths of the attorneys’ fees and all of the costs within 45 days following the Court’s final approval of the settlement, and the balance of 

the attorney fees on January 7, 2012. 

NOTICE AND CLAIMS PROCEDURE

18. Within twenty-one days after the Court has given its preliminary approval to this proposed settlement, notice of the proposed 

settlement, and information about the date and time of the fairness 

hearing will be sent by first class mail to the last ascertainable address 

of each class member. “Ascertainable” means the last known address as 

enhanced by the United States Postal Service change of address database. The cost of this notice shall be paid by defendant Cook County. In 

the event that this settlement obtains final approval from the Court, 

the cost of notice will be deducted from the Administration Fund. 

19. To participate in this settlement, each Class Member must 

submit a sworn Claim Form postmarked no later than the date certain 

established on the final Class Notice. The Class Notice will include a 

forwarding and return address, which will be a Post Office Box controlled by Class Counsel. Class Counsel shall provide Cook County and 

the Sheriff with copies of all claim forms received. 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:9486
-11- 

DECEASED, DISSOLVED, BANKRUPT, 

OR INCAPACITATED CLASS MEMBERS 

20. Where a Class Member is deceased and a payment is due to

that Class Member, upon receipt of a proper notification and documentation, settlement payment shall be made in accordance with Illinois 

law. 

21. Where a Class Member has been declared bankrupt, or is 

the subject of an open and ongoing bankruptcy proceeding, and a payment is due to the Class Member, upon receipt of proper notification 

and documentation, the settlement payment shall be made to such 

Class Member in accordance with applicable United States Bankruptcy 

Code laws. 

COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CLASS 

22. The Class Notice shall list Class Counsel's addresses. Other 

than as provided for in this Stipulation, communications relating to the 

Action or this Settlement with persons receiving Class Notices and Potential Class Members shall be through Class Counsel. Nothing in this 

Stipulation shall be construed to prevent Cook County, the Sheriff, 

their employees, agents, or representatives from communicating with 

Potential Class Members or Class Members in the normal course of its 

operations. 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:9487
-12- 

CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT AND 

EFFECT OF DISAPPROVAL, CANCELLATION 

OR TERMINATION OF STIPULATION 

23. If the Court disapproves this Stipulation or fails to rule, or 

if the Court enters the Final Judgment but it is reversed or vacated on 

appeal, this Stipulation shall be null and void and of no force and effect. 

If the Court materially modifies any provision of the Stipulation or proposed Final Judgment, or if either is materially modified on appeal or 

remanded to the Court for modification, with Cook County and the 

Sheriff determining what is “material” in the use of its reasonable discretion, Cook County, the Sheriff or Class Counsel shall have the option 

of terminating this Stipulation and withdrawing this consent to the entry of the Final Judgment, in which case this Stipulation shall be null 

and void and of no force and effect. 

24. If any financial obligation is imposed upon Cook County in 

addition to or greater than those specifically set out in this Stipulation, 

Cook County may withdraw its consent to the entry of the Final Judgment, in which case this Stipulation shall be null and void and of no 

force and effect. 

25. The “Effective Date” of this Stipulation shall be the date on 

which the Court enters an order approving this proposed settlement. 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:9488
-13- 

OBJECTIONS 

26. A class member may file a notice of intent to object to the 

proposed settlement. The written notice of intent to object must be filed 

with the Clerk of the Court not later than 7 days before the date set for 

the Final Settlement Hearing. 

REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 

27. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel warrant and represent that no 

promise or inducement has been offered or made for the Release in paragraphs 25 except as set forth herein, that the Release is executed 

without any reliance whatsoever on any statements or representations 

not contained herein, including but not limited to any statements, conduct, disclosure or non-disclosure or representations regarding discovery in the Action, and that the Release reflects the entire agreement 

among the parties with respect to the terms of the Release. The warranties and representations made herein shall survive the execution 

and delivering of the Release and shall be binding upon the parties' 

heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. 

RELEASES 

28. Upon the Effective Date, Plaintiffs, all Class Members, and 

their heirs, trustees, executors, administrators, principals, beneficiaries, assigns and successors will be bound by the Final Judgment and 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:9489
-14- 

conclusively deemed to have fully released, acquitted and forever discharged, as defined in paragraph 10(j). 

29. All people and entities who meet the Class Definition and 

who have not timely filed “opt out” forms shall be forever barred from 

prosecuting their own lawsuit asserting any of the claims at issue in 

this litigation and they and their heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, partners, successors and assigns shall be deemed 

to have fully released and forever discharged the Released Persons (defined below) from all Released Claims (defined below). 

a. “Released Persons” means County of Cook and the Sheriff 

of Cook County each of their past or present directors, officers, employees, agents, Board members, attorneys, advisors, consultants, representatives, partners, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, related companies, and divisions, and 

each of their predecessors, successors, heirs and assigns. 

b. “Released Claims” means any and all liabilities, claims, 

cross-claims, causes of action, rights, actions, suits, debts, 

liens, contracts, agreements, damages, restitution, disgorgement, costs, attorneys' fees, losses, expenses, obligations or demands, of any kind whatsoever that the Releasing Persons may have or may have had, whether in arbitraCase: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:9490
-15- 

tion, administrative, or judicial proceedings, whether 

known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, threatened, 

asserted or unasserted, actual or contingent, liquidated or 

unliquidated, that were alleged in this lawsuit. This re 

lease does not extend to any claim that may be, has been, 

or will be, asserted on behalf of the “releasing person” as an 

unnamed class member in any other action. 

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

30. The parties hereto and their undersigned counsel agree to 

undertake their best efforts and mutually cooperate to effectuate this 

Stipulation and the terms of the proposed settlement set forth herein, 

including taking all steps and efforts contemplated by this Stipulation, 

and any other steps and efforts which may become necessary by order 

of the Court or otherwise. The parties hereto further agree to defend 

this Stipulation against objections made to final approval of the Settlement or in any appeal of the Final Judgment or collateral attack on 

the Stipulation or Final Judgment. Class Counsel will not seek from 

Cook County any additional compensation, including attorney fees, 

cost, expenses or reimbursements for any work that may be involved in 

defending this agreement. 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:9491
-16- 

31. The undersigned counsel represent that they are fully authorized to execute and enter into the terms and conditions of this Stipulation on behalf of their respective clients. This agreement has been 

presented to and approved by the Cook County Board. 

32. Except as otherwise provided between the parties, this Stipulation contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and 

supersedes any prior agreements or understandings between them. All 

terms of this Stipulation are contractual and not mere recitals, and 

shall be construed as if drafted by all parties hereto. The terms of this 

Stipulation are and shall be binding upon each of the parties hereto, 

their agents, attorneys, employees, successors and assigns, and upon 

all other persons claiming any interest in the subject matter hereof 

through any of the parties hereto, including any Class Member. 

33. To the extent permitted by law, this Stipulation may be 

pleaded as a full and complete defense to, and may be used as the basis 

for an injunction against, any action, suit or other proceeding which 

may be instituted, prosecuted or attempted in breach of this Stipulation. 

34. Enforcement and Reservation of Jurisdiction. The 

parties agree that the Court will reserve jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this agreement and that the Court may, for good cause, adCase: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:9492
-17- 

just and reset the dates set out in paragraph 16 above for a reasonable 

period following final approval of this settlement. Good cause is defined 

as legally adequate and substantial grounds and not simple neglect. If 

the Court approves the settlement, it will enter an order of dismissal 

that will dismiss the litigation with prejudice as to all Class Members, 

except those persons who have timely filed “opt out” forms. 

Agreed to, this 16th day of November, by the party representatives below who have affixed their signatures showing their assent to 

the above Class Settlement Agreement. 

/s/ Thomas G. Morrissey

Thomas G. Morrissey 

ARDC #3125372

10249 S. Western Ave

Chicago, IL 60643 

(773) 233-7900 

Robert H. Farley, Jr.

1155 S. Washington St.

Suite 201

Naperville, Il. 

(630) 369-0103

attorneys for plaintiffs

/s/ Francis J. Catania

(with consent)

Francis J. Catania

Assistant State’s Attorney

500 Daley Center

Chicago IL 60602

(312) 603-6572

an attorney for defendant 

Cook County

/s/ Steven M. Puiszis

(with consent)

Steven M. Puiszis

Bernard E. Jude Quinn

Hinshaw & Culbertson 

LLP

222 N. LaSalle Street, 

Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 704-3000

attorneys for defendant 

Sheriff of Cook County

 

 

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:9493
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of March, 2011, I electronically filed

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will

send notification of such filing to the following: Francis J. Catania, ASA, 302

Daley Center, Chicago, IL 60602, and Steven Puiszis, HINSHAW &

CULBERTSON, 222 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60601-1081 , and I hereby

certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the

following non CM/ECF participants: none.

/s/ Thomas G. Morrissey

______________________

Thomas G. Morrissey

ARDC Number 3125372

10249 S Western Ave

Chicago, IL 60643

(77) 23-7900

Case: 1:04-cv-01051 Document #: 466 Filed: 03/17/11 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:9494