EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:11
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 1 of 3

2120 - Served 2121 - Served

2220 - Not Served 2221 - Not Served

2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail

2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication

Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 A

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

(Name all parties)

v.

Case No. 

SUMMONS ALIAS SUMMONS

To each Defendant:

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of 

which is hereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance and pay the required fee within thirty

(30) days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service. To file your answer or

appearance you need access to the internet. Please visit www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org to initiate

this process. Kiosks with internet access are available at all Clerk’s Office locations. Please refer to

the last page of this document for location information.

If you fail to do so, a judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief 

requested in the complaint.

To the Officer:

This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, 

with endorsement of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, 

this Summons shall be returned so endorsed. This Summons may not be served later than thirty (30) 

days after its date.

TAMACA BELL, on behalf of a class,

SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, et. al.

2020-CH-03727

SODEXO AMERICA, LLC

c/o CORPORATE CREATIONS NETWORK INC.

350 S NORTHWEST HIGHWAY #300

PARK RIDGE, IL 60068

FILED

4/27/2020 6:35 PM

DOROTHY BROWN

CIRCUIT CLERK

COOK COUNTY, IL

2020CH03727

9151693

Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: 8/4/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM

Courtroom Number: 2502

Location: District 1 Court

 Cook County, IL FILED DATE: 4/27/2020 6:35 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:12
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 2 of 3

Witness: 

DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of Court

Date of Service: ___________

(To be inserted by officer on copy left with 

Defendant or other person):

E-filing is now mandatory for documents in civil cases with limited exemptions. To e-file, you must first

create an account with an e-filing service provider. Visit http://efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm

to learn more and to select a service provider. If you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http://

www.illinoiscourts.gov/FAQ/gethelp.asp, or talk with your local circuit clerk’s office.

Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 B

Address: 

City: ____________________________

State: ____ Zip: ________

Telephone: ________________________

Primary Email: 

Atty. No.: 56618________________

Atty Name: Brendan Duffner 

Atty. for: Plaintiff

 

Chicago

IL 60601

312 893 7002

bduffner@mcgpc.com

55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor 

4/27/2020 6:35 PM DOROTHY BROWN

FILED DATE: 4/27/2020 6:35 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:13
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 3 of 3

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington

 Chicago, IL 60602

 District 2 - Skokie

 5600 Old Orchard Rd

 Skokie, IL 60077

 District 3 - Rolling Meadows

 2121 Euclid

 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

 District 4 - Maywood

 1500 Maybrook Ave

 Maywood, IL 60153

 District 5 - Bridgeview

 10220 S 76th Ave

 Bridgeview, IL 60455

 District 6 - Markham

 16501 S Kedzie Pkwy

 Markham, IL 60428

 Domestic Violence Court

 555 W Harrison

 Chicago, IL 60607

 Juvenile Center Building

 2245 W Ogden Ave, Rm 13

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Criminal Court Building

 2650 S California Ave, Rm 526

 Chicago, IL 60608

Daley Center Divisions/Departments

 Civil Division

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington, Rm 601

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

 Chancery Division

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington, Rm 802

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

 Domestic Relations Division

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington, Rm 802

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

 Civil Appeals

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington, Rm 801

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

 Criminal Department

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington, Rm 1006

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

 County Division

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington, Rm 1202

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

 Probate Division

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington, Rm 1202

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

 Law Division

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington, Rm 801

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

 Traffic Division

 Richard J Daley Center

 50 W Washington, Lower Level

 Chicago, IL 60602

 Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY OFFICE LOCATIONS

FILED DATE: 4/27/2020 6:35 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:14
1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

TAMACA BELL, individually and on 

behalf of all similarly situated 

individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company, and 

SODEXO AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 

Hon. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Tamaca Bell (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all similarly situated 

individuals, brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendant SDH Services West, LLC and 

Sodexo America, LLC (“Defendants”) for their violations of the Illinois Biometric Information 

Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”), and to obtain redress for persons injured by their

conduct. Plaintiff alleges the following based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiff’s own 

experiences, and as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including an investigation 

conducted by Plaintiff’s attorneys.

INTRODUCTION

1. BIPA defines a “biometric identifier” as any personal feature that is unique to an 

individual, including handprints, fingerprints and palm scans. “Biometric information” is any 

information based on a biometric identifier, regardless of how it is converted or stored. 740 ILCS 

§ 14/10. Collectively, biometric identifiers and biometric information are known as “biometrics.”

2020CH03727

FILED

4/6/2020 3:34 PM

DOROTHY BROWN

CIRCUIT CLERK

COOK COUNTY, IL

2020CH03727

9027302

Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: 8/4/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM

Courtroom Number: 2502

Location: District 1 Court

 Cook County, IL FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:15 12-Person Jury
2

2. This case concerns the misuse of individuals’ biometrics by Defendants, food 

production, distribution, and services companies. Using biometric enabled technology, Defendants

are capturing, collecting, disseminating, or otherwise using the biometrics of Plaintiff and other 

Class members, without their informed written consent as required by law, in order to track their 

time at work.

3. BIPA provides, inter alia, that private entities, such as Defendants, may not obtain 

and/or possess an individual’s biometrics unless they first:

(1) inform the person whose biometrics are to be collected in writing that 

biometric identifiers or biometric information will be collected or stored; 

(2) inform the person whose biometrics are to be collected in writing of the 

specific purpose and the length of term for which such biometric identifiers 

or biometric information is being collected, stored and used;

(3) receive a written release from the person whose biometrics are to be collected, 

allowing the capture and collection of their biometric identifiers or biometric 

information; and

(4) publish publicly available retention guidelines for permanently destroying 

biometric identifiers and biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

4. Compliance with BIPA is straightforward and may be accomplished through a 

single, signed sheet of paper. BIPA’s requirements bestow a right to privacy in biometrics and a 

right to make an informed decision when electing whether to provide or withhold biometrics.

5. Defendants’ biometric timekeeping system works by extracting biometric 

information from individuals, such as handprints, fingerprints or portions thereof, and 

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:16
3

subsequently using the same for authentication and timekeeping purposes. The system includes 

the dissemination of biometrics to third parties, such as data storage vendors and payroll services. 

6. The Illinois Legislature has found that “biometrics are unlike other unique 

identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information. For example, even 

sensitive information like Social Security numbers can be changed. Biometrics, however, are

biologically unique to each individual and, once compromised, such individual has no recourse, is 

at a heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric facilitated 

transactions.” 740 ILCS 14/5. The risk is compounded when a person’s biometrics are also 

associated with their other personally identifiable information. 

7. The deprivation of the statutory rights conferred by BIPA constitutes the actual 

injuries the Illinois Legislature sought to prevent.

8. Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other remedies as a result of 

Defendants’ conduct in violating Plaintiff’s state biometric privacy rights.

9. On Plaintiff’s own behalf, and on behalf of the proposed Class defined below, 

Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to comply with BIPA, as well as an award of 

statutory damages to the Class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

PARTIES

10. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Tamaca Bell has been a resident and a citizen of the 

state of Illinois. 

11. Defendant SDH Services West, LLC is a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of the state of Delaware that conducts substantial business throughout Illinois, including 

in Cook County, and is registered with and authorized by the Illinois Secretary of State to transact 

business in Cook County, Illinois.

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:17
4

12. Defendant Sodexo America, LLC is a limited liability company organized under 

the laws of the state of Delaware that conducts substantial business throughout Illinois, including 

in Cook County, and is registered with and authorized by the Illinois Secretary of State to transact 

business in Cook County, Illinois.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court may assert personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 735 ILCS 

5/2-209 in accordance with the Illinois Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, 

because Defendants are doing business within this State and because Plaintiff’s claims arise out of 

Defendants’ unlawful in-state actions, as Defendants captured, collected, stored, and used

Plaintiff’s biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in this State.

14. Venue is proper in Cook County pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101, because Defendants

are doing business in Cook County and thus reside there under § 2-102. 

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF

15. Defendants are food production, distribution, and services companies with 

operations in the state of Illinois and Cook County. 

16. Defendant Sodexo America, LLC is the parent and sole member of Defendant SDH 

Services West, LLC. 

17. During the relevant time, Plaintiff worked for Defendant SDH Services West, LLC 

in Chicago, Illinois.

18. While Plaintiff worked for Defendant SDH Services West, LLC, Defendants

implemented biometric scanning and time-tracking devices and technology to monitor and manage 

their workers’, including Plaintiff’s, time on the job.

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:18
5

19. Plaintiff was required to provide biometric scans to Defendants each time Plaintiff 

needed to clock in and clock out of a shift at work. 

20. Plaintiff relied on Defendants to not only provide a lawful and legally compliant 

system, but to also disclose all material information regarding the technology and system, 

including all relevant retention, destruction, and dissemination policies. 

21. Further, on information and belief, Defendants disseminated information derived 

from the scanning of Plaintiff’s biometric identifiers to third parties, including vendors for 

timekeeping, data storage, and payroll purposes. 

22. Prior to taking Plaintiff’s biometrics, Defendants did not inform Plaintiff in writing 

that Plaintiff’s biometrics were being collected, stored, used, or disseminated, or publish any policy 

specifically about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of biometrics. 

23. Defendants did not seek, and Plaintiff never provided, any written consent relating 

to the collection, use, storage, or dissemination of Plaintiff’s biometrics.

24. Prior to taking Plaintiff’s biometrics, Defendants did not make publicly available 

any written policy as to its biometric retention schedule, nor did Defendants disclose any 

guidelines for permanently destroying the collected biometrics. 

25. Additionally, Defendants did not obtain consent from Plaintiff for any 

dissemination of Plaintiff’s biometrics to third parties. 

26. To this day, Plaintiff is unaware of the status of the biometrics obtained by 

Defendants. Defendants have not informed Plaintiff whether they still retain Plaintiff’s biometrics, 

and if they do, for how long they intend to retain such information without Plaintiff’s consent.

27. By failing to comply with BIPA, Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s substantive 

state rights to biometric privacy.

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:19
6

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

28. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated 

individuals pursuant to 735 ILCS § 5/2-801. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class defined as follows:

Class: All individuals whose biometrics were captured, collected, stored, used, 

transmitted, or disseminated by or on behalf of Defendants within the state of 

Illinois at any time within the applicable limitations period. 

29. Excluded from the Class are any members of the judiciary assigned to preside over 

this matter; any officer or director of Defendants; and any immediate family member of such 

officers or directors.

30. Upon information and belief, there are scores, if not hundreds, of members of the 

Class, making the members of the Class so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

Although the exact number of members of the Class is currently unknown to Plaintiff, the members 

can be easily identified through Defendants’ personnel records.

31. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class Plaintiff 

seeks to represent, because the factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiff and the 

other members are the same, and because Defendants’ conduct has resulted in similar injuries to 

Plaintiff and to the Class. As alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Class have all suffered damages as a 

result of Defendants’ BIPA violations and common law transgressions. 

32. There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the 

Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual members. 

Common questions for the Class include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Defendants’ conduct is subject to BIPA;

b. Whether Defendants made available to the public a written policy that 

establishes a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometrics;

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:20
7

c. Whether Defendants obtained a written release from the Class before 

capturing, collecting, or otherwise obtaining their biometrics;

d. Whether Defendants provided a written disclosure that explains the specific 

purposes, and the length of time, for which biometrics were being collected, 

stored and used before taking such biometrics;

e. Whether Defendants’ conduct violates BIPA;

f. Whether Defendants’ violations of the BIPA are willful or reckless; and

g. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages and injunctive relief.

33. Absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the cost of litigating 

their claims to be prohibitively expensive and would thus have no effective remedy. The class 

treatment of common questions of law and fact is superior to multiple individual actions in that it 

conserves the resources of the courts and the litigants and promotes consistency of adjudication.

34. Plaintiff will adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the 

Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex litigation 

and class actions. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this 

action on behalf of the other members of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. 

Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other members of 

the Class.

35. Defendants have acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class, requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure 

compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Class and making injunctive or 

corresponding declaratory relief appropriate for the Class as a whole.

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:21
8

COUNT I

Violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.

(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) 

36. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

37. Defendants are private entities under BIPA.

38. BIPA requires private entities, such as Defendants, to obtain informed written 

consent from individuals before acquiring their biometric information. Specifically, BIPA makes 

it unlawful to “collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or 

customer’s biometric identifiers or biometric information unless [the entity] first: (1) informs the 

subject . . . in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or 

stored; (2) informs the subject . . . in writing of the specific purpose and length of for which a 

biometric identifier or biometric information is being captured, collected, stored, and used; and (3) 

receives a written release executed by the subject of the biometric identifier or biometric 

information . . . .” 740 ILCS 14/15(b).

39. BIPA also requires that a private entity in possession of biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information establish and maintain a publicly available retention policy. An entity which 

possesses biometric identifiers or information must (i) make publicly available a written policy 

establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanent deletion of biometric information 

(entities may not retain biometric information longer than three years after the last interaction with 

the individual); and (ii) adhere to the publicly posted retention and deletion schedule. 

40. Plaintiff and the other Class members have had their “biometric identifiers,” 

namely their fingerprints, collected, captured, or otherwise obtained by Defendants. Plaintiff and 

the other Class members’ biometric identifiers were also used to identify them, and therefore 

constitute “biometric information” as defined by BIPA. 740 ILCS 14/10.

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:22
9

41. Each instance Plaintiff and the other Class members were required to scan their 

fingerprints, Defendants captured, collected, stored, and/or used Plaintiff’s and the other Class 

members’ biometric identifiers or biometric information without valid consent and without 

complying with and, thus, in violation of BIPA. 

42. Defendants’ practice with respect to capturing, collecting, storing, and using 

biometrics fails to comply with applicable BIPA requirements:

a. Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff and the members of the Class in writing 

that their biometrics were being collected and stored, prior to such collection 

or storage, as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1);

b. Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff and the Class in writing of the specific 

purpose for which their biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, and 

used, as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2);

c. Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff and the Class in writing the specific 

length of term their biometrics were being captured, collected, stored, and 

used, as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2);

d. Defendants failed to obtain a written release, as required by 740 ILCS 

14/15(b)(3);

e. Defendants failed to provide a publicly available retention schedule detailing 

the length of time for which the biometrics are stored and/or guidelines for 

permanently destroying the biometrics they store, as required by 740 ILCS 

14/15(a); and

f. Defendants failed to obtain informed consent to disclose or disseminate the 

Class’ biometrics, as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(d)(1).

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:23
10

43. By obtaining and operating an employee timekeeping system which uses biometrics 

that was devoid of the privacy protections required by BIPA, Defendants profited from Plaintiff’s 

and the Class members’ biometric identifiers and biometric information in violation of 740 ILCS 

14/15(c). Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the biometric systems they used 

would be subject to the provisions of BIPA yet wholly failed to comply with the statute. 

44. By capturing, collecting, storing, using, and disseminating Plaintiff’s and the 

Class’s biometrics as described herein, Defendants denied Plaintiff and the Class their right to 

statutorily required information and violated their respective rights to biometric information 

privacy, as set forth in BIPA.

45. BIPA provides for statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless 

violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. 740 

ILCS 14/20(1)-(2).

46. Defendants’ violations of BIPA, a statute that has been in effect since 2008, were 

knowing and willful, or were at least in reckless disregard of the statutory requirements. 

Alternatively, Defendants negligently failed to comply with BIPA.

47. Accordingly, with respect to Count I, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the 

proposed Class, prays for the relief set forth below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, respectfully 

requests that this Court enter an Order:

a. Certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiff as class representative 

and the undersigned as class counsel;

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:24
11

b. Declaring that Defendants’ actions, as set forth herein, violate BIPA Sections 15(b) 

and 15(d);

c. Awarding injunctive and equitable relief as necessary to protect the interests of 

Plaintiff and the Class by requiring Defendants to comply with BIPA;

d. Awarding statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of 

BIPA, pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2);

e. Awarding statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA, 

pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); 

f. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and other litigation expenses pursuant 

to 740 ILCS 14/20(3); 

g. Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest, as allowable by law; and

h. Awarding such further and other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Dated: April 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

TAMACA BELL, individually and on behalf of a 

all similarly situated individuals

By: /s/ Timothy P. Kingsbury 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Timothy P. Kingsbury

Andrew T. Heldut

MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. (Firm ID: 56618)

55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.

Chicago, IL 60601

Tel: (312) 893-7002

tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

aheldut@mcgpc.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

FILED DATE: 4/6/2020 3:34 PM 2020CH03727

Case: 1:20-cv-03181 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/29/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:25