1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE, individually and )

on behalf of others similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:20-cv-02531 SJC

)

v. ) JURY DEMANDED

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his individual and official )

capacity as President of the United States; )

MITCH MCCONNELL, in his individual and )

official capacity as a Senator and Sponsor of )

S. 3548 CARES Act; and )

STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his individual and official )

capacity as the Acting Secretary of the U.S. )

Department of Treasury, )

)

Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, John Doe, (hereinafter “Doe” or “Plaintiff”), individually and on 

behalf of the proposed class, by and through his attorneys, Blaise & Nitschke, P.C. and Khalaf & 

Abuzir, LLC, and submits his first amended class action complaint against DONALD J. 

TRUMP, in his individual and official capacity as President of the United States; MITCH 

MCCONNELL, in his individual and official capacity as United States Senator and the Sponsor 

of S. 3548 CARES Act; and STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his individual and official capacity as the 

Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury (hereinafter collectively referred to as 

“Defendants”). In furtherance whereof, Plaintiff states as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

This is a class action based upon Defendants’ unconstitutional deprivation of the rights, 

privileges, benefits and/or protections provided to United States Citizens, via the enactment and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:45
2

subsequent enforcement of the S. 3548-Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act 

(hereinafter “CARES Act”), both enactment and enforcement of which evidence the 

discriminatory purpose and intent of said Act.

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff John Doe is a U.S. citizen who at all times mentioned in this Complaint 

resided in the Northern District of Illinois. 

2. That “John Doe” is not Plaintiff’s actual name, but rather is a fictitious name for 

an actual person as herein described, in order to protect his actual identity, which is protected 

under the 5th Amendment and the facts alleged herein. 

3. Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, in his individual and official capacity as 

President of the United States, is the President of the United States who signed into law the S. 

3548-Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (hereinafter “CARES Act) on March 

27, 2020.

4. Defendant, MITCH MCCONNELL, in his individual and official capacity as 

United States Senator, is the Sponsor of the S. 3548-CARES Act, introduced in the Senate on 

March 19, 2020 and signed into law on March 27, 2020. 

5. Defendant, STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his individual and official capacity, is the 

Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury. 

6. That Defendants are each sued in their individual and official capacities and are 

the three persons and/or offices most responsible for the conduct alleged herein.

7. Each of the Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the acts of 

the other Defendants as described herein, and ratified, approved, joined in, acquiesced in, and/or 

authorized the acts of the other, and/or retained the benefits of the said acts.

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:46
3

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has Federal Question Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the case 

arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 

9. Venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to 

the claims alleged herein occurred in this judicial district. 

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, which 

gives the district court supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

11. This civil rights action challenges the CARES Act on constitutional grounds. The 

CARES Act denies tax-paying U.S. citizens their rights, privileges, benefits and/or protections

embodied in § 6428.2020 of the CARES Act (“Recovery Rebates For Individuals”).

12. The CARES Act was introduced in the United States Senate (the “Senate”) on 

March 19, 2020 by Mitch McConnell (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Grassley, 

Mr. Rubio, Mr. Shelby, and Mr. Wicker). S. 3548, 116th Cong. (2020).

13. The CARES Act was signed into law by President Donald J. Trump on March 27, 

2020. Statement by the President, WHITEHOUSE.GOV (March 27, 2020) https://www.whitehouse.

gov/briefings-statements/statement-by-the-president-38/ (last visited Apr 24, 2020).

14. The CARES Act is to provide emergency assistance and health care response for 

individuals, families, and businesses affected by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic (“COVID-19”).

S. 3548, 116th Cong. (2020).

15. Sec. 6428 of the CARES Act authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to disburse 

$1,200.00 to Americans earning up to $75,000.00 in adjusted gross income who have a Social 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:47
4

Security number, and an additional $500.00 for each child under the age of 17 (hereinafter “the 

Stimulus Check”). S. 3548, 116th Cong. § 6428 (2020).

16. Sec. 6428 of the CARES Act authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to disburse

$2,400.00 to Americans filing jointly when earning up to $150,000.00 in adjusted gross income. 

S. 3548, 116th Cong. § 6428 (2020).

17. The Stimulus Checks includes Defendant Trump’s signature. Defendant Mnuchin 

admits that the inclusion of Defendant Trump’s signature on the Stimulus Checks was Defendant 

Mnuchin’s idea. 

18. To be eligible to receive a payment, an individual:

● must be a U.S. citizen, permanent resident or qualifying resident alien; 

● cannot be claimed as a dependent on someone else’s return;

● must have a Social Security number (“SSN”) that is valid for employment (“valid SSN”)

o Exception: If either spouse is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces at any time 

during the taxable year, then only one spouse needs to have a valid SSN;

and

● must have an adjusted gross income below an amount based on his or her filing status and 

the number of his or her qualifying children.

Economic Impact Payment Information Center, IRS.GOV (April 24, 2020) https://www.irs.gov/

coronavirus/economic-impact-payment-information-center (last visited April 24, 2020).

19. Any family that files a joint tax return where one of the spouses has a Social 

Security number and one has an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, which the Internal 

Revenue Service issues to workers who lack Social Security numbers, cannot receive a Stimulus 

Check — unless one spouse is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Jenny Jarvie, These U.S. 

Citizens Won’t Get Coronavirus Stimulus Checks – Because Their Spouses Are Immigrants, LOS 

ANGELES TIMES (April 20, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-20/u-scitizens-coronavirus-stimulus-checks-spouses-immigrant (last visited April 24, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:48
5

20. There are 1.2 million Americans married to immigrants who do not hold Social 

Security numbers. Profile of the Unauthorized Population: United States, MIGRATION POLICY 

INSTITUTE, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/US 

(last visited April 24, 2020).

21. Of the 1.2 million Americans, those who file joint tax returns and are not in the 

military are ineligible for a Stimulus Check and deprived of the right(s), benefit(s) and/or 

privilege(s) conferred upon all other U.S. citizens who otherwise qualify. “It’s a deliberately 

cruel carve-out,” said Manar Waheed, senior legislative and advocacy counsel with the American 

Civil Liberties Union. Jarvie, supra.

22. Putative class Plaintiff is a U.S. citizen who earns less than $75,000.00 in adjusted 

gross income, whose children are also U.S. citizens, and is excluded from the government’s $2 

trillion coronavirus financial relief package because he files his taxes jointly with his spouse, an 

immigrant who does not have a Social Security number.

23. Plaintiff Doe is married to an immigrant who pays taxes and files tax returns with 

an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. The couple file joint tax returns and neither are 

in the military. 

24. Had Plaintiff not been married to an immigrant with an Individual Taxpayer 

Identification Number, Plaintiff and his children would have otherwise qualified for a Stimulus 

Check.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

25. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the following putative 

classes: 

All United States Citizens married to immigrants that file joint taxes 

wherein the immigrant-spouses file tax returns using an Individual 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:49
6

Taxpayer Identification Number who would have otherwise qualified 

for the Stimulus Check.

26. The Class (“Class”) is so numerous that joinder of all individual members 

(individually, “Class Member” or collectively, “Class Members”) in one action would be 

impracticable, given the expected Class size and modest value of individual claims.

27. There are more than 1.2 million Americans that are married to immigrants who 

lack Social Security numbers.

28. Of the 1.2 million Americans, those who file joint tax returns and are not in the 

military would meet the above-referenced Class definition. 

29. Class Members can be identified through Defendants’ records.

30. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members, as they are 

based on the same legal theory and arise from the same unlawful conduct.

31. There are common questions of law and fact affecting Class Members, which 

common questions predominate over questions that may affect individual members. These 

common questions include, but are not limited to: 

a. Whether and to what extent Defendants have deprived Class Members of 

their First Amendment Rights; Equal Protection and Due Process under the 

Law; 

b. Whether and to what extent Defendants have deprived Class Members of 

their property interest; 

c. Whether and to what extent Defendants have deprived Class Members of 

their rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution of the 

United States; 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:50
7

d. Whether Class members are entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, 

and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct; 

e. Whether Class Members are entitled to injunctive relief to redress the 

imminent and currently ongoing harm faced as a result of their exclusion from 

the CARES Act; and 

f. Whether or not Class Members are entitled to Declaratory Judgment relating 

to their classification and exclusion, among others, under the CARES Act.

32. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Class Members. Plaintiff has no 

interests that conflict with the interests of Class Members. Plaintiff has retained counsel 

experienced in handling civil rights cases and class actions. Neither Plaintiff nor his or her 

counsel has any interests that might cause them not to pursue these claims vigorously.

33. This action should be maintained as a class action because the prosecution of 

separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying 

adjudications with respect to individual members that would establish incompatible standards of 

conduct for the parties opposing the Class. 

COUNT I

Violation(s) of United States Constitution 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-33 of this Complaint as though 

fully set forth herein.

35. The Defendants, in their individual and official capacities as President of the 

United States, Senator and Sponsor of the CARES Act in the United States, and Acting Secretary 

of the U.S. Department of Treasury, violated Plaintiff’s procedural and substantive due process 

rights and deprived Plaintiff of his rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:51
8

of the United States.

36. The Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in behavior that violates 

Plaintiff’s constitutional property interest rights individually and as a taxpayer in the United 

States and have thereby irreparably injured Plaintiff. 

37. Defendants, acting under color of law, have violated rights secured to Plaintiff by 

the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution including the right 

of association, the right to due process of law, the right to equal protection under the law, and the 

penumbra of privacy rights created by the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments that 

creates a fundamental right to marriage. Specifically, Defendants have failed, as applied to 

Plaintiff, to treat him as equal to his fellow United States citizens based solely on whom he chose 

to marry. 

38. Plaintiff has lawfully filed taxes in the United States, yet he is being denied the 

rights and privileges under the CARES Act.

39. Similarly situated U.S. citizens who are not married to immigrants and who filed 

joint tax returns have not been denied such rights and privileges under the “CARES” Act.

40. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants in their individual and official

capacities for purposes of seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and challenges the practices 

and policies of discrimination both facially and as applied to him, individually, and as the 

putative Class Plaintiff.

41. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person 

shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. 

42. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, enforceable 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:52
9

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In addition, the 

Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “the citizens of each 

state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” U.S. 

Const. amend. XIV, § 1 Clause 2. Although the Fourteenth Amendment expressly applies to the 

State, it has been construed to apply to the Federal Government through the Reverse 

Incorporation Doctrine under Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) and its progeny. See Brown 

v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña 515 

U.S. 200 (1995) (applying strict scrutiny to the federal government based on equal protection

grounds).

Marriage as a Fundamental Right Emanating From 

Our First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments

43. The Supreme Court has reiterated in numerous contexts that the right to marry is a 

fundamental right under the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102, 116, 

117 S. Ct. 555, 136 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1996); Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-

640, 94 S. Ct. 791, 39 L. Ed. 2d 52 (1974); Griswold, supra, at 486, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 

510; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 86 L. Ed. 1655 

(1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042 (1923).

44. Discrimination based on the fundamental right to marry is presumptively 

unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny.

45. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no 

law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging 

the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 

petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I.

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:53
10

46. Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations 

from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of 

privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one of 

those fundamentally protected zones of privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 480, 85 

S. Ct. 1678, 1679 (1965). 

47. The right of privacy first achieved constitutional stature in Griswold v. 

Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965), wherein the Griswold Court 

began by noting that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by 

emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” 381 U.S. at 484.

48. The Griswold opinion stressed the sanctity of marriage lying within the zone of 

privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 

U.S. 479, 485, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 1682 (1965)

49. Defendants discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of their fundamental right of 

marriage. 

50. The CARES Act provision at issue, on its face and as applied, or threatened to be 

applied, violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; Due Process Clause of 

the Fifth Amendment; Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities afforded under the 

Fourteenth Amendment under Reverse Incorporation Doctrine; and the well-established 

fundamental right to marry.

51. The First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments all amount to well-established 

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known was violated personally

and officially by the Defendants.

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:54
11

52. Defendants have no compelling interest justifying their policies of discrimination 

based on marriage, and they cannot show that these classifications are necessary to serve any 

legitimate governmental interest. 

53. The Defendants treat Plaintiff differently than U.S. Citizens who file jointly with 

other U.S. Citizens, who are similarly situated.

54. The CARES Act singles out law-abiding and tax-paying U.S. Citizens by 

excluding them from a benefit they and their children would otherwise be entitled to with no 

compelling interest justifying the law and without serving any legitimate governmental interest.

55. Sec. 6428 is not narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest, 

nor is it rationally related to any legitimate government interest.

56. Accordingly, the CARES Act provision at issue violates the First Amendment to 

the United States Constitution; Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution; Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities under the Fourteenth Amendment 

under the Reverse Incorporation Doctrine; and the well-established fundamental right to marry. 

Alienage as a Suspect Class

57. “[Classifications] based on alienage, like those based on nationality or race, are 

inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny. Aliens as a class are a prime example of 

a ‘discrete and insular’ minority . . . for whom such heightened judicial solicitude is 

appropriate.” Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372 (1971) (footnotes and citations omitted).

58. Discrimination based on the alienage of a U.S. citizen’s spouse is presumptively 

unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny.

59. Defendants discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of the alienage of their 

spouse. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:55
12

60. The CARES Act provision at issue, on its face and as applied, or threatened to be 

applied, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; Due Process Clause of 

the Fifth Amendment; Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities under the Fourteenth 

Amendment under the Reverse Incorporation Doctrine; and the well-established fundamental 

right to marry. 

61. Defendants have no compelling interest justifying their policies of discrimination 

based on the marriage to a non-U.S. Citizen, and they cannot show that this suspect class is 

necessary to serve any legitimate governmental interest.

62. The Defendants treat Plaintiff differently than U.S. Citizens who marry other U.S.

Citizens, who are similarly situated.

63. Sec. 6428 is not narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest, 

nor is it rationally related to any legitimate government interest. 

64. Accordingly, the CARES Act provision at issue violates the First Amendment of

the United States Constitution; Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution; Equal Protection and Privileges and Immunities under the Fourteenth Amendment 

under the Reverse Incorporation Doctrine; and the well-established fundamental right to marry. 

COUNT II

Action for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”); 

Preliminary and Permanent Injunction; and Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-64 of this Complaint as though 

fully set forth herein.

66. Plaintiff seeks the entry of a temporary restraining order, preliminary and 

permanent injunction, and Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following:

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:56
13

a. Issue a temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction against the 

Defendants and all those acting in concert prohibiting enforcement of the 

laws, as applied, at issue in this action; and

b. Issue a declaratory judgment that the CARES Act provision at issue in this 

case, as applied to Plaintiff and the putative class, violates the constitutional 

and statutory rights of Plaintiff and denies Plaintiff the privileges and 

immunities to which he would otherwise be entitled. 

67. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm. There is 

no harm to the Defendants by this Court granting an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the 

challenged CARES Act provision. Meanwhile, the harm to Plaintiff is severe. The public interest 

is clearly served by this Court acting to order recognition of U.S. Citizens and their children 

consistent with the manner in which the Federal Government treats similarly situated U.S.

Citizens, without regard to their marital status. Only prompt action by this federal Court ordering 

declaratory and injunctive relief will serve the public interest.

68. Injunctive relief is appropriate under the circumstances because Defendants have 

intentionally excluded otherwise eligible U.S. Citizens from receiving the Stimulus Check and 

more damaging, excluding them from a benefit conferred upon all other U.S. Citizens simply

because of whom they chose to marry, which is facially discriminatory and retributive.

69. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, immediate and irreparable harm 

by reason of the conduct described above. Such immediate and irreparable harm includes, but is 

not limited to, the loss of a minimum of $1,200.00 U.S. Dollars and a loss of privacy, reputation

in the community, and dignity.

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:57
14

70. Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law to protect and re-establish the 

rights which currently have been, and continue to be, violated by Defendants’ actions. Plaintiff’s 

rights cannot be obtained except through injunctive relief.

71. Entering the injunctive relief that Plaintiff is seeking will cause the Defendants no 

harm. 

72. Defendants will suffer no loss, if compelled to act in accordance with the law, by 

refraining from discriminating against U.S. Citizens based upon their marital status to 

immigrants. 

73. There is a reasonable likelihood that the Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his

claims.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, 

by and through his attorneys, Blaise & Nitschke, P.C. and Khalaf & Abuzir, LLC, prays for relief 

as follows:

a. For an Order certifying this action as a class action and appointing Plaintiff and his 

Counsel to represent the Class;

b. A temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants and all 

those acting in concert prohibiting enforcement of the laws, as applied, at issue in this 

action, as follows;

i. Issuing a Temporary Restraining Order amending the CARES Act as follows: 

“(h) Identification Number Requirement.—

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:58
15

“(1) IN GENERAL.—No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) 

to an eligible individual who does not include on the return of tax for 

the taxable year—

“(A) such individual’s valid identification number,

“(B) in the case of a joint return, the valid identification number of 

such individual’s spouse for at least one of the filing spouses, and

“(C) in the case of any qualifying child taken into account under 

subsection (b)(1)(B), the valid identification number of such 

qualifying child.

“(2) VALID IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘valid 

identification number’ means a social security number (as such term is 

defined in section 24(h)(7)).

ii. Issuing a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction amending the CARES Act as 

identified above and enjoining Defendants from affixing any new terms to the 

CARES Act, or any future legislation designed to provide stimulus to United 

States citizens that excludes mixed immigration status families. 

c. Issue a declaratory judgment that the CARES Act provision at issue in this case is 

subject to strict scrutiny;

d. Issue a declaratory judgment that the CARES Act provision at issue in this case, as 

applied to the Plaintiff, violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiff;

e. Issue a declaratory judgment striking from the CARES Act those provisions that are 

violative of the protections afforded to Plaintiff and those similarly situated under the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:59
16

United States Constitution, federal statutes, and those cases interpreting the same 

under which this Court is bound under the principles of stare decisis;

f. Enter an Order requiring the Defendants to hold in escrow or otherwise earmark 

sufficient funds for the issuance of Stimulus Checks to members of the putative class;

g. For an award of attorneys’ fees and costs; and

h. Such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury of all matters so triable.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands that Defendants take affirmative steps to preserve all 

recordings, data, documents, and all other tangible things that relate to Plaintiff and the putative 

class and the events described herein. These materials are likely very relevant to the litigation of 

this claim. If Defendants are aware of any third party that has possession, custody, or control of 

any such materials, Plaintiff demands that Defendants request that such third party also take 

steps to preserve the materials. This demand shall not narrow the scope of any independent 

document preservation duties of the Defendants.

NOTICE OF LIEN AND ASSIGNMENT

All rights relating to attorneys’ fees have been assigned to counsel.

Dated: April 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

John Doe, individually and 

on behalf of others similarly situated

(collectively “Their”).

By: /s/ Lana B. Nassar

Lana B. Nassar

One of Their attorneys

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:60
17

By: /s/ Vivian Khalaf

Vivian Khalaf

One of Their attorneys 

By: /s/ Heather L. Blaise

Heather L. Blaise

One of Their attorneys

By: /s/ Elisabeth A. Gavin

Elisabeth A. Gavin

One of Their attorneys 

By: /s/ Omar Abuzir

Omar Abuzir

One of Their attorneys 

By: /s/ Thomas J. Nitschke

Thomas J. Nitschke 

One of Their attorneys 

Lana B. Nassar, 6319396

Vivian Khalaf, 6210668

Heather L. Blaise, 6298241

Elisabeth A. Gavin, 6297740

Omar Abuzir, 6257708

Thomas J. Nitschke, 6225740

Blaise & Nitschke, P.C.

123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250

Chicago, Illinois 60606

T: (312) 448-6602

F: (312) 803-1940

lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

Khalaf & Abuzir, LLC 

20 N. Clark, Suite 720

Chicago, IL 60602

T: (708)-233-1122

F: (708)-233-1161

vkhalaf@immigrationjd.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:61
18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on the 27th day of April, 2020, she caused the foregoing 

instrument to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois using the CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Lana B. Nassar

Lana B. Nassar

Blaise & Nitschke, P.C.

123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250

Chicago, Illinois 60606

T: (312) 448-6602

F: (312) 803-1940

lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

ARDC No. 6319396

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 11 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:62