1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CIVCON SERVICES, INC., individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACCESSO SERVICES, LLC

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 Case No. 20-cv-01821

 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CivCon Services, LLC (“CivCon” or “Plaintiff”), a former tenant of a building managed 

by Defendant Accesso Services, LLC (“Accesso” or “Defendant”), brings this class action against 

Accesso for damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) on 

behalf of a class of tenants of Accesso’s office buildings in Chicago’s Loop. 

SUMMARY OF CASE

1. This is a RICO class action brought by the tenants in the Chicago Loop office buildings 

managed by Accesso for conspiring with the labor unions representing its employees to force 

its tenants to hire union only contractors (particularly movers and the building trades such as 

electricians, painters and carpet installers). 

2. The result is that Accesso’s tenants must pay for higher priced unionized labor. These tenants 

have suffered damages from this ongoing conspiracy.

3. The conspiracy is an illegal “hot cargo” agreement carried out by Accesso at both of its 

Chicago loop locations in response to union demands. And by requiring tenants of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:157
2

buildings it manages to use unionized labor, Accesso is compounding the hot cargo agreement 

with violations of the Hobbs Act, a type of racketeering activity.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

4. Plaintiff CivCon Services, Inc. is an Illinois corporation.

5. Defendant Accesso Services, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company. 

6. The Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), the civil RICO 

cause of action, and 28 U.S.C. §1332, as a federal question.

7. Venue is proper here as Accesso conducts business in this district and the relevant transactions 

occurred here.

FACTS

8. Accesso manages at least two large commercial office buildings in the Chicago Loop, 200 W. 

Monroe St., and 230 W. Monroe St. Its management responsibility includes, among many 

others, setting rules for building access by contractors.

9. Since at least 2014, Accesso has allowed three labor unions to restrict access to its buildings

by any non-union contractors: the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 399, AFLCIO, Service Employees International Union, Local 1, and Teamsters Local 705 (“the three 

unions” collectively). 

10. The first two of these unions have collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) with Accesso

governing the terms of employment of its engineers and janitors. But those CBA’s do not, and 

cannot legally, prohibit Accesso from denying its tenants the right to have non-union laborers 

access or perform work in their office spaces. (Local 705 represents movers, which every 

tenant needs to move in and out of their suites, an expensive undertaking. It does not have a 

CBA with Accesso but successfully pressures Accesso to forbid non-union movers from 

accessing its buildings). 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:158
3

11. The conspiracy between the three unions and Accesso is unwritten. It violates the National 

Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. §158(e) as a type of “unfair labor practice” commonly 

referred to as a “hot cargo agreement,” a pact by an employer and a union to “cease handling”

or otherwise dealing with an entity because it is not unionized. 

12. Accesso has agreed to impose this restriction (“the union-only rule”) on its Loop tenants at the 

behest of the three unions. The purpose of the hot cargo agreement is to punish non-union 

contractors and reward union contractors.

13. These three unions have exerted their power over Accesso for years. Their business agents, 

who operate outside the buildings, and union employees inside, closely monitor all contracting 

in Accesso buildings. If they see a truck near the loading docks without the familiar union 

decals, they spring into action to notify the property manager and demand the non-union 

contractor/firm be removed. If this is not done, the agents and/or employees notify their union 

officials at its local office. They will then call the property manager, demand expulsion and, 

if necessary, threaten a work stoppage (strike), picketing outside the building which may 

include the display of a large inflatable rat (sometimes called a “union rat”) on or immediately 

adjacent to Accesso managed property for public shaming. 

14. All of these actions are in violation of the CBA’s, which forbid strikes, and as stated, the 

NLRA. Rather than oppose the union’s demands, which can be accomplished by obtaining an 

injunction through the National Labor Relations Board, Accesso agrees to their demands, at 

the considerable expense of its tenants. 

15. Accesso zealously enforces this union-only policy through its building managers. They direct 

tenants to keep non-union contractors out. Before Accesso management permits a contractor 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:159
4

into its buildings, it requires proof of union membership. If the contractor is unable to provide 

such proof, the contractor is prevented from entering the building. 

CivCon’s Experience with Accesso

16. CivCon, a civil engineering consulting and management firm, was a tenant at 230 W. Monroe 

St., Chicago, managed by Accesso, for several years when it decided to move, for space 

considerations, in April 2016. 

17. CivCon reached an agreement with Accesso to permit it to move to a smaller suite in the same 

building for reduced rent. Accesso required CivCon to use a union mover and provided it with 

a tenant allowance of $24,114.00. That sum was intended to cover the higher costs for union 

prices of the services it needed to relocate. Accesso recommended Boyer Rosene Movers, a

union mover in downtown Chicago. CivCon, like all tenants, had to receive pre-approval of 

any movers and contractors it used, and Accesso would not approve any that were not 

unionized. 

18. Tenant allowances are common features in Loop commercial leases. The money is an advance 

on the rent the tenant will pay. The larger the allowance, the higher the rent. Thus, the 

$24,114.00 allowance was in reality a loan to CivCon. Accesso amortized that sum, plus 

interest, over the course of the lease. These rent payments, which were mailed each month,

would have been lower without it.

19. CivCon hired Boyer-Rosene Moving & Storage, Inc. (Boyer-Rosene) for the move, which cost 

$11,168.96. It was paid from the allowance in May 2016. CivCon preferred to use a lessexpensive non-union mover.

20. As part of its relocation, in April 2016, CivCon hired Chicago Electrical Company, a union 

firm, to install wiring in its new suite. The cost was $10,689.00, which also came from the 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:160
5

tenant allowance. CivCon preferred a less expensive non-union firm to do the work, but was 

prevented from so choosing by Accesso. 

21. In April 2016, CivCon hired IMG Technologies, Inc. (“IMG”), a union firm operating 

throughout numerous states, to perform fiber optic/riser work to accommodate AT&T’s 

services in its relocated office suite. Without this necessary project, CivCon would not have 

phone/internet servicesin its new suite. The cost for this was $3,896. ($2,256.04 of this amount 

was paid through the tenant allowance and the remaining $1,639.96 was paid by CivCon as a 

business expense in May 2016, not through the tenant allowance). CivCon was required to use 

a union firm, but it preferred to use a less expensive non-union firm for this work. 

Accesso’s Other Tenants Have Also Been Victims of the Illegal Union-Only Rule

22. Civ Con’s experience was not unique. The same union-only rule was imposed and enforced 

by Accesso on hundreds of other tenants, including by way of example only, those set forth in 

the following paragraphs.

Point B, Inc. (“Point B”)

23. Point B is a consulting company that helps organizations in the areas of customer engagement, 

growth investments, workforce experience and operations excellence. Point B has offices 

throughout the U.S., including an office in the Chicago loop, and has clients across the world. 

24. In or about February 2018, Point B moved its Chicago office location from 150 N. Wacker 

Drive to the Accesso managed building located at 230 W. Monroe Street. Prior to moving in, 

Point B was required by Accesso to use union movers. This requirement was verbally 

communicated to Point B by Accesso managers and it was made clear to Point B that nonunion movers would not be permitted. 

25. In order to move in, Point B, per Accesso’s mandatory union-only rule, hired a union mover.

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:161
6

26. In or about February 2019, Point B changed office suites within the 230 W. Monroe Street 

building managed by Accesso. Point B moved to a different floor. 

27. Once again, Point B was required by Accesso, per its mandatory union-only rule, to use a 

union-mover for this move, and did so. 

28. The union movers charged more than a non-union mover would have charged for the same 

move. Thus, Point B was damaged by the same pattern of racketeering as Civ Con.

Patterson Law Firm

29. The Patterson Law Firm, LLC (“Patterson Law”) is a law firm located in Chicago with over a 

dozen lawyers and which handles, inter alia, business litigation. 

30. During the last two to three years, Patterson Law moved into the Accesso managed building 

located at 200 W. Monroe Street. 

31. Patterson Law was required to use union movers. In order to move in, Patterson Law, per 

Accesso’s mandatory union-only rule, hired a union mover.

32. Patterson Law also did a “build-out” of its office space at 200 W. Monroe Street around the 

same time. Again, Patterson Law was required, per Accesso’s mandatory union-only rule, to 

use union contractors for this work. Accesso would not allow any non-union contractors or 

movers to access the buildings. In order to complete the “build-out,” Patterson Law, per 

Accesso’s mandatory union-only rule, hired union contractors. 

33. The union movers and contractors charged more than non-union firms. Thus, Patterson Law 

was damaged by the same pattern of racketeering as Civ Con.

Smith & Cull, Ltd.

34. Smith & Cull, Ltd. is an accounting firm providing, inter alia, tax, accounting, and consulting 

services to clients. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:162
7

35. In or about 2019 or 2020, Smith & Cull moved from 20 N. Wacker Drive to the Accesso 

managed building located at 230 W. Monroe Street. Prior to moving in, Accesso informed 

Smith & Cull that it required all tenants to use union movers to move into the building. Nonunion movers were not permitted. 

36. In order to move in, Smith & Cull, per Accesso’s mandatory union-only rule, hired a union 

mover.

37. Smith & Cull also did a “build-out” when it moved into 230 W. Monroe, which included 

painting, electrical, and carpentry work. As was the case with movers, Smith & Cull was 

required by Accesso to use union contractors for all it the “build-out” work. Accesso informed 

Smith & Cull that all tenants are required to use union contractors. 

38. In order to complete the “build-out,” Smith & Cull, per Accesso’s mandatory union-only rule,

hired union painters, carpenters, electricians, and other union workers. 

39. The union movers and contractors charged Smith & Cull Ltd. more than non-union firms. 

Thus, Smith & Cull Ltd. was damaged by the same pattern of racketeering activity as Civ Con. 

40. Accesso maintains a strict policy and practice to not allow any mover or contractor to access 

the building without its approval. It will not approve any non-union firm. This policy/rule is 

communicated to each and every tenant prior to commencing any move/contractor work. 

41. This mandatory union-only rule has been continuously in place since Accesso took over the 

management of the 200 and 230 W. Monroe Street buildings in the Chicago Loop in or about 

2014.

42. Accesso’s implementation and enforcement of its mandatory union-only rule is still currently 

in existence. New and current tenants are not permitted to use non-union contacting firms to 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:163
8

do any work in their spaces. Accesso will not allow any non-union contractors to even enter 

the building. 

43. Thus, Accesso has been engaged in this illegal practice (pattern of racketeering) since 

CivCon’s 2016 move, and before (at least since 2014), and the practice has been continuously 

in effect ever since, harming other tenants over at least a three to four-year period, if not longer. 

44. Moreover, the unlawful pattern is still in effect today and will continue to harm all current and 

future tenants into the future until halted by judicial intervention.

45. Accesso’s conduct, as described above, is thus a “closed” and an “open” scheme, pattern of 

racketeering activity.

The Higher Cost of Union Labor in the Loop

46. The difference in cost between union and non-union labor is significant, at least 20% higher 

for union workers and movers (if not more). 

47. For example, a comparison of hourly wage rates from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS) for the Chicago metropolitan area (which includes both union and 

non-union workers) with the Illinois Department of Labor’s prevailing wage rate for Cook 

County, which measures only union wages, indicates sizeable differences. With respect to the 

three most common categories of labor used in commercial renovation, the differences are as 

follows: for carpenters, $32.61 (BLS) versus $46.35 (Cook County prevailing union)—a

42.1% difference; for electricians, $38.29 versus $47.40—a 23.8% difference; and, for 

painters, $29.59 versus $45.55—an 53.9% difference.

1

1

See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2016 Occupational Employment Statistics, 

Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights Metropolitan Div, available

at: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes_16974.htm. The Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS 130/3 

et seq., requires contractors to pay workers on “public works” projects “the general prevailing rate of hourly 

wages in the locality.” Id. at § 9. The Illinois Department of Labor is required to annually ascertain and 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:164
9

48. As a result, CivCon and each putative Class member preferring to use non-union movers and 

other contract labor, have been overcharged by a likely conservative estimate of at least 20%

(and likely more). The actual amount will have to be determined by an economist. 

The Restriction Violates the Hobbs Act

49. The “Hot Cargo” conspiracy among the unions and Accesso also violates 18 U.S.C. §1951(a), 

which states, in pertinent part:

Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or 

affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity 

in commerce, by...extortion or attempts or conspires so to do ... 

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty 

years, or both ....

50. Pursuant to §1951(b), extortion means: “the obtaining of property from another, with his 

consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color 

of official right.”

51. The extorted property is the money that CivCon was required to spend on more expensive 

union services. Accesso’s denial of access to non-union movers, tradesman, and contractors 

preys on the tenants’ fear of lost income that will result if they cannot get their offices spaces 

worked on by tradesmen. In other words, unless CivCon (and the other tenants) accede to 

Accesso’s demands, they will not be able to start or complete their renovations and be open 

for business. 

52. By refusing to allow tenants to conduct business unless they use union labor, Accesso 

effectively holds hostage the tenants’ ability to run their own businesses.

publish these prevailing rates for each county in the state. Id. The 2017 rates for Cook County can be found 

here: https://www2.illinois.gov/idol/laws-rules/conmed/documents/2017%20rates/cook.pdf.

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:165
10

53. The use of economic fear here is wrongful because the agreement between Accesso and the 

unions to impose union-only terms on the tenants is an illegal hot cargo policy. It violates 29 

U.S.C. §158(e).

54. These violations of the Hobbs Act have been occurring continuously at all of Accesso’s Loop 

buildings for the past four years (and more). It is Accesso’s regular way of managing its 

buildings and therefore, this practice will continue unabated, victimizing every tenant until 

halted by judicial intervention.

Class Allegations

55. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein as though fully set forth below.

56. CivCon brings this action both on behalf of itself, and as a class action, pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), on behalf of a Class defined as:

All individuals and entities who were tenants in Accesso’s 

Chicago Loop commercial buildings who were subjected to the 

union-only rule and incurred moving expenses or hired 

contractors to make improvements in their properties in the past 

four years.

57. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, Defendant, any entity in which Defendant 

has a controlling interest, and Defendant’s officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, 

employees, co-conspirators, successors, subsidiaries, parent corporations and assigns. Also 

excluded from the Class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and 

the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.

58. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all class members is impractical. While the exact 

number of Class members is unknown to CivCon at this time, it believes that there are, at least, 

hundreds, and their identities and relevant information can be ascertained from Accesso’s 

records.

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:166
11

59. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over 

any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law 

and fact common to the Class are:

a) Whether Accesso engaged in a conspiracy with any and/or all of the three unions 

to require only approved union contractors/movers be permitted in its loop 

buildings;

b) Whether tenants were obliged to use union contractors/movers as a result of the 

conspiracy;

c) Whether Accesso committed a pattern of violations of 18 U.S.C. §1951;

d) Whether Accesso’s conduct caused injury to the members of the Class and, if so, 

the proper amount of damages; and

e) Whether CivCon and the other members of the Class are entitled to injunctive relief.

60. CivCon’s claims are typical of the absent Class members because they were all tenants of the 

Defendant and were subjected to the union only rule during the relevant time period. It seeks 

no relief that is adverse to the absent Class members.

61. CivCon will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class and has 

retained counsel competent and experienced in class action and RICO litigation. Class counsel 

will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.

62. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

this controversy since joinder of all Class members is impractical. The prosecution of separate 

actions by many individual members of the Class would impose heavy burdens upon the courts 

and would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications of the questions of law and 

fact common to the Class. A class action would achieve substantial economies of time, effort 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:167
12

and expense, and would assure uniformity of decision as to persons or entities similarly situated 

without sacrificing procedural fairness.

63. Counsel anticipates no difficulty in the management of this case because the evidence proving 

the conspiracy is obtainable through discovery. Damages can be determined on a Class-wide 

basis by an economist from publicly available data and records of the class members, 

contractors and other third parties.

COUNT I:

CLAIM AGAINST ACCESSO FOR VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)

64. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein as though fully set forth below.

65. Defendant Accesso is a RICO person pursuant to §1961(3). 

66. Accesso has committed a pattern of repeated violations of §1951 since at least 2016 (and 

longer), which are “acts of racketeering” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(B). As noted above, 

its implementation and enforcement of a mandatory union-only rule constitutes both a closed 

and open-ended pattern of racketeering. It has been ongoing for at least three to four years, 

and likely longer. It also currently ongoing and will continue into the future. 

67. Each instance in which Accesso forces its Loop tenants to use union contractors/movers

through the economic fear described above is a violation of §1951. 

68. All Accesso tenants in its loop buildings have also been victimized in the same manner by the 

exact same practice. Any tenant who moved into, out of, or within Accesso’s buildings, since 

Accesso took over in or about 2014, were not permitted to use non-union contractors. 

Similarly, any tenant who renovated and./or built out its space was similarly not permitted to 

use non-union contractors to perform any such work. Any such tenant would also be a victim 

of Accesso’s same practice. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:168
13

69. The RICO enterprise is an association-in-fact enterprise, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1961(4),

consisting of the three unions and Accesso. 

70. This enterprise has a common purpose: to force union-only labor on commercial tenants in 

buildings managed by Accesso in the Chicago Loop. It has been ongoing for years and depends 

upon the communications among the members to carry out its illegal purpose.

71. To accomplish this goal, as detailed above, the union agents constantly patrol all of Accesso’s 

buildings and report any non-union contractors to Accesso’s building managers. Additionally, 

to carry out the objectives of the enterprise, Accesso building managers instruct their 

subordinates in each of its Loop buildings to report any instance of a violation to its building 

managers. 

72. This relationship has been ongoing for many years. 

73. This enterprise also affects interstate commerce, as required by 18 U.S.C. §§1962(c) and (d). 

Accesso is a Florida limited liability company, boasting that it has $3.3 billion in assets and 

that it does business across 21 cities and eight states.2 And Local 399 and SEIU Local 1 are 

huge multi-state “locals” with members residing in other Midwestern states. Their activities 

frequently cross state lines and have an effect on interstate commerce. 

74. As stated, Accesso manages at least two large commercial buildings in the Chicago loop, 

whose tenants engage in a wide variety of professional services with clients throughout the 

U.S., which affects interstate commerce. Additionally, the materials used for tenant build-outs 

are typically purchased and sold across state lines and the union companies that Accesso’s 

tenants are forced to hire often operate across state lines, such as IMG Technologies, Inc. 

75. Therefore, Accesso has violated 18 U.S.C. §1962(c), which states, in pertinent part:

2

See https://accessopartners.com/properties/ (last accessed October 31, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:169
14

It shall be 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's affairs through a 

pattern of racketeering activity...

76. As a direct and proximate cause of Accesso’s pattern of racketeering, CivCon has been injured 

in its business and property, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), in the following ways:

a. By paying $11,168.96 for moving, which is an overcharge of at least 20% for these 

services had CivCon been permitted to use non-union labor; 

b. By paying $10,689.00 for wiring services, which is an overcharge of at least 20% 

for these services had CivCon been permitted to use non-union labor; and

c. By paying $3,896.00 for fiber optic/riser work, which is an overcharge of at least 

20% for these services had CivCon been permitted to use non-union labor. 

77. Accordingly, CivCon demands judgment be entered against Accesso, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§1964(c), for its damages, trebled, plus attorney’s fees, costs and pre-judgment interest. 

Civcon also asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Accesso from 

continuing to enforce the union-only policy.

78. CivCon requests a jury trial. 

79. CivCon requests certification of the case as a class action.

COUNT II:

CLAIM AGAINST ACCESSO FOR VIOLATING 18 U.S.C. §1962(d)

80. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein as though fully set forth below.

81. In carrying out the RICO violations, Accesso formed an agreement with the three unions to 

carry out the objectives described above. 

82. This agreement has been ongoing between these entities for at least the last four years, and 

likely, longer. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:170
15

83. 18 U.S.C §1962(d) states, in pertinent part: “It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to 

violate subsection (c) of this section.”

84. Therefore, this is an agreement to violate §1962(c), which violates 18 U.S.C. §1962(d). 

85. As a direct and proximate cause of Accesso’s conspiracy to violate §1962(c), CivCon has been 

injured in its business and property, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1964(c), as detailed above. 

86. Accordingly, CivCon demands judgment be entered against Accesso, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§1964(c), for its damages, trebled, plus attorney’s fees, costs and pre-judgment interest. 

CivCon also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against Accesso from continuing to 

enforce the union-only policy.

87. CivCon requests a jury trial. 

88. CivCon requests certification of the case as a class action.

COUNT III

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT

89. CivCon requests that the Court declare the union-only rule to be illegal and therefore 

unenforceable, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Dated November 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James B. Zouras

James B. Zouras

Ryan F. Stephan

Anna M. Ceragioli

STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP

100 N. Riverside Plaza

Suite 2150

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 233.1550

(312) 233.1560 fax

jzouras@stephanzouras.com

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:171
16

rstephan@stephanzouras.com

aceragioli@stephanzouras.com

 

 Howard Foster

Matthew Galin

FOSTER PC

10 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 875

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 726-1600

hfoster@fosterpc.com

mgalin@fosterpc.com

Aaron Walner

THE WALNER LAW FIRM LLC

555 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 250

Northbrook, IL 60062

(312) 371-2308

awalner@walnerlawfirm.com

walner@walnerlawfirm.com

Caroline J. Smith

CAROLINE J. SMITH & ASSC., P.C.

77 W. Washington St., Suite 1001

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 606-9500

carolinesmithlaw@att.net

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

AND THE CLASS

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:172
17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the attorney, hereby certify that on November 5, 2020, I filed the attached with the Clerk 

of the Court using the ECF system, which will send such filing to all attorneys of record.

 /s/ James B. Zouras 

Case: 1:20-cv-01821 Document #: 31 Filed: 11/05/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:173