1 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MAIA KORMAN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) 

) 

CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal ) 

corporation, Police Officer FELIPE ) No. 

DE LA GARZA, Police Officer NICOLE ) 

RODAK, Police Officer AGUSTIN ) 

CERVANTES, Police Officer ROBERT ) 

S. KUBON, Police Officer PAUL M. ) 

SADOSKI, ) 

) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

COMPLAINT AT LAW

NOW COMES Plaintiff, MAIA KORMAN, by and through her attorneys, Law Office 

of Jordan Marsh, Complaining of Defendants, CITY OF CHICAGO, and Chicago Police 

Officers FELIPE DE LA GARZA, NICOLE RODAK, AGUSTIN CERVANTES, ROBERT 

S. KUBON, and PAUL M. SADOSKI, and pleads as follows:

JURSDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, particularly the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, under the 

laws of the United States, particularly the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 of the United States 

Code, Sections 1983 and 1988, and under the laws of the State of Illinois.

20 CV 1986

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
2

2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Title 28 of the United 

States Code, Sections 1331 and 1343. Plaintiff also invokes the supplemental jurisdiction 

of this Court pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1367.

3. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

under Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1391(b)(2), as the events complained 

of occurred within this district.

PARTIES

4. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff MAIA KORMAN (hereinafter “Maia”) was a 

resident of the City of Chicago, Illinois, County of Cook, State of Illinois, and a citizen of 

the State of Illinois. 

5. DEFENDANT FELIPE DE LA GARZA (hereinafter “Defendant De La Garza”) was 

at all times relevant, a sworn police officer employed by Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO, 

and was acting within the scope of his agency, service and/or employment with the CITY 

OF CHICAGO, and was acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, 

customs, and usages of the State of Illinois.

6. DEFENDANT NICOLE RODAK (hereinafter “Defendant Rodak”) was at all times 

relevant, a sworn police officer employed by Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO, and was 

acting within the scope of her agency, service and/or employment with the CITY OF 

CHICAGO, and was acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, 

and usages of the State of Illinois.

7. DEFENDANT AGUSTIN CERVANTES (hereinafter “Defendant Cervantes”) was 

at all times relevant, a sworn police officer employed by Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO, 

and was acting within the scope of his agency, service and/or employment with the CITY 

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
3

OF CHICAGO, and was acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, 

customs, and usages of the State of Illinois.

8. DEFENDANT ROBERT KUBON (hereinafter “Defendant Kubon”) was at all times 

relevant, a sworn police officer employed by Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO, and was 

acting within the scope of his agency, service and/or employment with the CITY OF 

CHICAGO, and was acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, 

and usages of the State of Illinois.

9. DEFENDANT PAUL M. SADOSKI (hereinafter “Defendant Sadoski”) was at all 

times relevant, a sworn police officer employed by Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO, and 

was acting within the scope of his agency, service and/or employment with the CITY OF 

CHICAGO, and was acting under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, 

and usages of the State of Illinois.

10.Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO is a municipal corporation organized, existing and 

doing business under the laws of the State of Illinois, and at all times relevant provided 

police services in the CITY OF CHICAGO through the Chicago Police Department. 

11.At all times relevant, including on or about August 20, 2018, the Defendant, CITY 

OF CHICAGO, employed a force of police officers who served through the Chicago Police 

Department and who were assigned to work within various geographical areas within the 

CITY OF CHICAGO.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12.On August 20, 2018, Defendants De La Garza, Rodak, Cervantes, Kubon, and 

Sadoski (collectively “Defendant Officers”) arrested Maia while she was in the middle of 

an acute psychiatric episode caused by a mental illness. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
4

13.Maia had been wandering around the city of Chicago for several days prior to her 

arrest. She ended up at Wright College, on Chicago’s north side.

14.At Wright College, Maia allegedly pulled a fire alarm and struck a security guard, 

who called the police. 

15.When the Defendant Officers arrived, Maia was behaving in an erratic and 

confused manner. She was displaying classic and obvious signs of psychosis, and was 

clearly in need of mental health treatment. 

16.While Maia was in police custody at Wright College, the Defendant Officers

allowed the alleged victim – on information and belief, a current or retired Chicago police 

officer – to question and argue with Maia. At one point, in the presence of Defendant 

Officers, the alleged victim called Maia “nuts”. At another point – also in the presence of 

the Defendant Officers – the alleged victim made a gesture with his finger circling his ear 

to convey that Maia was crazy. 

17.While recounting the events that led the police to be called, the alleged victim 

stated that “I said [to Maia], ‘You gotta leave the building, the alarm’s going off, you gotta 

evacuate the building.’ I said it maybe five, six times, right to her face. And she’s lookin’ 

at me like I’m a fuckin’ idiot.” 

18.The alleged victim informed the Defendant Officers that when the fire alarm went 

off, he told Maia that she needed to leave, but she did not appear to understand what he 

was saying. He stated, “I told her ‘You gotta leave’...I told her ten times. I said ‘You gotta 

leave, you gotta leave. I thought she was deaf.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
5

19.While at Wright College, one or more Defendant Officers viewed surveillance 

footage of Maia in which she was walking through the halls of the school wearing a school 

banner over her head and down her back like it was a cape or a super hero costume. 

20.At one point, when asked if she had identification, Maia claimed to be a war veteran 

who was there to pick up her son, and also claimed to work at Wright College. At the time 

of her arrest, Maia was wearing an oversized sweater and basketball shorts. 

21.When Maia questioned whether the alleged victim – who was wearing a shirt with 

“SECURITY” and “Public Safety” emblazoned on the front – worked at Wright College, 

the alleged victim stated, “What are you, nuts? Are you nuts?”

22.When asked by an officer where her identification was located, Maia initially stated 

it was sewn in her arm, before finally admitting that she had no identification. 

23.While the officers waited for a transport car, officers and/or Wright College 

mockingly asked Maia who her boss was at the school. She responded with the name of 

a president. One of the school’s public safety officers informed the arresting officers that 

was not the college president’s name. When Maia asked who the president was, one or 

more of the Defendant officers or public safety officers stated mockingly, “You tell us, you 

work for him.” 

24.The Defendant officers, as well as the alleged victim, treated Maia’s obvious 

mental distress as a joke. 

25.Other than asking Maia if she was on medication, none of the Defendant Officers

made any inquiry regarding Maia’s mental health, or otherwise addressed the issue. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
6

26.Instead of providing or offering access to the mental health treatment that she 

obviously needed, the Defendant Officers arrested Maia and transported her to the 16th 

District police station, at 5151 North Milwaukee Avenue, in Chicago.

27.At the station, Maia continued to display signs of mental distress and disturbance, 

asking the officers, “What are you really doing? Who do you really work for?” 

28.One of the Defendant Officers – on information and belief Defendant Kubon –

rhetorically asked Maia, “What made you do all that stuff today? Bad day?”, before locking 

her in her cell. 

29.The City of Chicago and its police officers – including Defendant Officers – have a 

legal responsibility for the safety, health and well-being of persons in their custody and 

control.

30.During the time of Maia's arrest and detention, the Defendant Officers deprived 

Maia of access to mental health care, despite her obvious need for such treatment.

31.On information and belief, Maia was detained at the 16th District station until she 

was transferred to Bond Court at 2600 South California Avenue, where she was detained 

until she was released from Bond Court. 

32.At no time while she was in the custody of the Chicago Police Department was 

Maia provided the medical and/or mental health treatment she obviously needed, nor was 

her obvious mental health condition addressed. 

33.When she was released from 2600 S. California Avenue, Maia was still 

experiencing an acute psychiatric episode, and was completely unfamiliar with the 

surrounding area. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
7

34.Maia ended up on the West Side of Chicago, shoeless and panicked, unsure of 

her surroundings, unsure of who she was, or where she belonged, and still in the throes 

of a psychiatric episode. 

35.Maia wandered around the area until a good Samaritan, recognizing Maia’s 

distress, contacted the police. 

36.Chicago police officers arrived and immediately recognized that Maia was in 

emotional and/or mental distress. 

37.The officers transported Maia to Loretto Hospital, where she was admitted, 

provided the proper mental health treatment, and stabilized. 

38.Chicago Police Department Special Order S04-20, titled “Responding To Incidents 

Involving Persons In Need Of Mental Health Treatment”, requires that officers “be aware 

of verbal, behavioral and environmental cues that could suggest the individual is in need 

of mental health treatment”, including statements of false/fixed beliefs, or delusions. 

39. On information and belief, at all relevant times, Chicago Police Department 

protocols required that arrestees in need of mental health evaluation, treatment, or 

hospitalization be transported to designated mental health intake facilities. 

COUNT I – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO A SERIOUS MEDICAL NEED

DEFENDANT OFFICERS

40.Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 

41.As described above, the Defendant Officers observed Maia showing obvious signs 

of acute psychiatric distress, and were provided additional information that clearly 

demonstrated psychiatric distress. 

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
8

42.The actions of the Defendant Officers, as detailed above, in which the Defendant 

Officers were aware of but deliberately, willfully, and wantonly ignored the obvious serious 

mental health needs of Maia, and purposefully neglected and failed to take appropriate 

steps to protect her, constitute deliberate indifference to Maia’s medical needs, violating 

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

43.As a direct and proximate cause of the aforesaid constitutional violations, Maia 

suffered severe pecuniary damages, including severe physical and emotional pain and 

suffering, and loss of normal life.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MAIA KORMAN, prays for judgment against the 

Defendant Officers, in a fair and reasonable amount, including compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and for any additional relief this 

Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE

DEFENDANT OFFICERS

44. Each Paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein. 

45. By ignoring Maia’s obvious need for mental health treatment, Defendant Officers 

violated her constitutional right to medical treatment. The misconduct described in this 

Count was objectively unreasonable and was undertaken intentionally with willful 

deliberate indifference to Maia’s constitutional rights.

46.As a direct and proximate cause of the aforesaid constitutional violations, Maia 

suffered severe pecuniary damages, including severe physical and emotional pain and 

suffering, and loss of normal life.

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
9

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MAIA KORMAN, prays for judgment against the 

Defendant Officers, in a fair and reasonable amount, including compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and for any additional relief this 

Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III – 42 U.S.C. § 1983

FAILURE TO INTERVENE

DEFENDANT OFFICERS

47.Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein.

48.One or more of the Defendant Officers had a reasonable opportunity to prevent 

the violation of Maia’s constitutional rights as set forth above, but failed to do so.

49.As a result of Defendant Officers’ unconstitutional failure to intervene, Maia

experienced pain, suffering, emotional distress, and injury.

50.As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant Officers’ acts and omissions, 

Maia experienced severe pecuniary damages, including severe physical and emotional 

pain and suffering, and loss of normal life.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MAIA KORMAN, prays for judgment against the 

Defendant Officers, in a fair and reasonable amount, including compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and for any additional relief this 

Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV – INDEMNIFICATION CLAIM

CITY OF CHICAGO

51.Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully herein.

52.Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO is the employer of the Defendant Officers.

53.The Defendant Officers committed the acts alleged above under color of law and 

in the scope of their employment as employees of the CITY OF CHICAGO.

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
10

54.Illinois law provides that governmental entities are directed to pay any tort 

judgment for any damages for which employees are liable within the scope of their 

employment activities. 

WHEREFORE, should the Defendant Officers be found liable on one or more of the 

claims set forth above, the Plaintiff, MAIA KORMAN, demands that, pursuant to Illinois 

law, the Defendant CITY OF CHICAGO be found liable for any judgment plaintiff obtains 

against said defendants, as well as attorney’s fees and costs awarded, and for any 

additional relief this Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

38(b) on all issues so triable. 

Dated: March 26, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

MAIA KORMAN

 By: /s/ Jordan Marsh

Attorney for Plaintiff

Law Office of Jordan Marsh

55 East Monroe Street, Suite 3800

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 401-5510

jordan@jmarshlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-01986 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10