IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

AFM MATTRESS COMPANY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOTORISTS COMMERCIAL MUTUAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-03556

Judge: Manish S. Shah

Magistrate Judge: M. David Weisman

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF

NOW COMES Plaintiff AFM Mattress Company LLC (“Plaintiff”), by and through its 

attorneys, Brown Udell Pomerantz & Delrahim Ltd., and for its First Amended Complaint for 

Declaratory and Other Relief against Motorists Commercial Mutual Insurance Company, an 

Ohio mutual company (“Defendant”), states as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for failing to abide by the terms of 

the insurance policy issued to Plaintiff as Policy No. 5000045035, as well as any other applicable 

insurance policies issued or administered by Motorists Commercial Mutual Insurance Company 

(collectively, the “Policy”).

2. Plaintiff paid its premiums on the Policy for the past year, with the expectation 

that Defendant would honor its promises under the Policy and pay covered claims when needed 

by Plaintiff. 

3. Under The Policy, Plaintiff agreed to make payments to Defendant in exchange 

for Defendant’s promise to indemnify the Plaintiff for losses including, but not limited to, 

business income losses at its fifty-two (52) insured properties, including: 5725 S. La Grange Rd., 

Countryside, IL; 1953 N Clybourn Ave, Chicago. IL; 1461 Ellinwood Ave, Des Plaines, IL;

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:817
-2- 476701_2

1630 75th St, Downers Grove, IL; 665 W North Ave, Elmhurst, IL; 618 Davis St, Evanston, IL; 

6409 Grand Ave, Gurnee, IL; 134 Us Highway 41, Schererville, IN; 531 S Rand Rd, Lake 

Zurich, IL; 1474 S Butterfield Rd, Mundelein IL; 7203 W Dempster St. Niles, IL; 1458 Golf Rd, 

Rolling Meadows, IL; 2400 E Main St Ste 109, Saint Charles, IL; 35 E Golf Rd, Hoffman 

Estates, IL; 2658 E Main St, Plainfield, IN; 4909e 82nd St, Indianapolis, IN; 9369 E Washington 

St, Indianapolis, IN; 7570 Barrington Rd, Hanover Park, IL; 7123 North Ave, Oak Park, IL;

2950 US Highway 34, Oswego, IL; 2710 Laporte Ave, Valparaiso, IN; 4726 S Scatterfield Rd, 

Anderson, IN; 2839 W 95th St, Evergreen Park, IL; 578 W Northfield Dr, Brownsburg; IN; 197 

McHenry Rd, Buffalo Grove, IL; 51 Skokie Blvd, Northbrook, IL; 1410 W 86th St, Indianapolis, 

IN; 4916 Illinois Rd Ste 100, Fort Wayne, IN; 5172 Franklin St, Michigan City, IN; 1406 S 

Rangeline Rd, Carmel, IN; 2211 Sycamore Rd, Dekalb, IL; 6000 N Lincoln Ave, Chicago, IL; 

10464 Maysville Rd, Fort Wayne, IN; 1408 E 53rd St, Chicago, IL; 2112 N Clybourn Ave, 

Chicago, IL; 336 W Army Trail Rd, Bloomingdale, IL; 447 N Milwaukee Ave, Vernon Hills, IL;

102 S Schmale Rd, Carol Stream, IL; 4602 North Harlem Avenue, Harwood Heights, IL; 201 S 

State Road 135. Greenwood, IN; 254 W 81st Ave, Merrillville, IN; 4004 Roosevelt Rd, Hillside, 

IL; 2123 S Randall Rd. Geneva, IL; 9392 W 159th St, Orland Park, IL; 1226 N Clybourn Ave, 

Chicago, IL; 1300 Pratt Blvd, Suite 100, Elk Grove Village, IL; 13117 South Lagrange Road, 

Orland Park, IL; 1044 S Route 59, Naperville, IL; 349 E Rand Rd, Arlington Heights, IL; and 

10000 Skokie Blvd, Skokie, IL; 2620 N Narragansett Ave Chicago, IL; 700 W Diversey Ave 

Chicago, IL; 3 Rice Lake Square Wheaton, IL (collectively “Insured Properties”).

4. During the policy period, in March of 2020, Plaintiff halted and suspended 

business activities at its fifty-two (52) retail mattress stores in Illinois and Indiana due to loss of 

and damage to its properties from the COVID-19 pandemic, and from orders of governmental 

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:818
-3- 476701_2

authorities issued as a result of damage to other properties. Specifically, Illinois Governor J.B. 

Pritzker issued an executive order on March 15, 2020 banning all public and private gatherings 

of 50 or more people, in an effort to limit infection and death resulting from the spread of the 

virus. On March 20, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued a Closure Order (Executive Order 2020-10) 

(a.k.a., a Stay At Home Order) requiring all Illinois residents to stay at home barring exceptions 

for essential activities. On March 23, 2020, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb issued an order 

prohibiting all activities outside the home, likewise exempting only essential travel, business, 

governmental and healthcare activities. 

5. Before this, on March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially 

characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic, raising the health emergency to its highest level. Since 

that time, the number of cases of the virus has increased exponentially globally, with more than

200 countries and territories affected. 

6. The losses that Plaintiff has incurred and will incur are due to circumstances 

beyond its control which are no fault of its own.

7. To protect its business, its investors and its employees, Plaintiff submitted a claim 

to Defendant under the Policy, which Plaintiff had acquired for just this type of event/crisis. 

8. Despite having been given proper and timely notice, however, Defendant has 

refused to pay Plaintiff’s claim for losses to its business sustained due to the damage to its 

properties and the orders of governmental authorities’ orders.

9. Due to Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff’s claim, Plaintiff has no option but to 

seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to the Illinois Declaratory Judgment Act, 735 ILCS 5/2-

701, establishing that it is entitled to receive the benefit of the insurance coverage it purchased 

and for indemnification of the business losses it has sustained.

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:819
-4- 476701_2

THE PARTIES

10. Plaintiff is a limited liability company formed under Delaware law with its 

principal place of business in Elk Grove Village, Illinois.

11. Defendant is an insurance company formed under the law of Ohio with its 

principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter under 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a) because 

the Defendant does business in Illinois.

13. Venue is proper pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101 because the transaction out of 

which the cause of action arose occurred in Cook County, Illinois.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

14. Plaintiff is the owner/operator of fifty-two (52) retail mattress stores located in 

Illinois and Indiana. 

The Policy

15. At all relevant times, Defendant insured Plaintiff pursuant to the Policy drafted by

Defendant.

16. Plaintiff is a named insured pursuant to the Policy. A copy of the Policy is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

17. Plaintiff’s Policy includes a Business Income (and Extra Expense) Coverage 

Form providing coverage for loss of Business Income, Extra Expense coverage, and coverage for 

loss due to the actions of a Civil Authority.

18. Relevant portions of the Policy provide that:

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:820
-5- 476701_2

1. Business Income

* * *

We will pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain due to 

the necessary "suspension" of your "operations" during the "period of 

restoration". The ''suspension" must be caused by direct physical loss of 

or damage to property at premises which are described in the 

Declarations and for which a Business Income Limit Of Insurance is 

shown in the Declarations. The loss or damage must be caused by or 

result from a Covered Cause of Loss. With respect to loss of or 

damage to personal property in the open or personal property in a 

vehicle, the described premises include the area within 100 feet of such 

premises.

With respect to the requirements set forth in the preceding paragraph, if 

you occupy only part of a building, your premises means:

(a) The portion of the building which you rent, lease or occupy;

(b) The area within 100 feet of the building or within 100 feet of the 

premises described in the Declarations, whichever distance is greater 

(with respect to loss of or damage to personal property in the open or 

personal property in a vehicle); and

(c) Any area within the building or at the described premises, if that area 

services, or is used to gain access to, the portion of the building which 

you rent, lease or occupy.

19. The term “Business Income” is defined in the Policy as the:

a. Net Income (Net Profit or Loss before income taxes) that would have 

been earned or incurred; and

b. Continuing normal operating expenses incurred, including payroll.

20. The Extra Expense coverage states, in relevant part:

We will pay necessary Extra Expense (other than the expense to repair or 

replace property) to:

(1) Avoid or minimize the "suspension" of business and to continue 

operations at the described premises or at replacement premises or 

temporary locations, including relocation expenses and costs to equip 

and operate the replacement location or temporary location.

(2) Minimize the "suspension" of business if you cannot continue 

"operations".

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:821
-6- 476701_2

We will also pay Extra Expense to repair or replace property, but only to 

the extent it reduces the amount of loss that otherwise would have been 

payable under this Coverage Form.

21. Extra Expense is defined to mean “necessary expenses you incur during the 

‘period of restoration’ that you would not have incurred if there had been no direct physical loss 

or damage to property caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss.”

22. The term “period of restoration,” as modified by an endorsement, is defined in the 

Policy as the period of time that: 

a. Begins:

(1) 72 hours after the time of direct physical loss or damage for 

Business Income Coverage; or

(2) Immediately after the time of direct physical loss or damage 

for Extra Expense Coverage;

caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss at the 

described premises; and

b. Ends on the earlier of:

(1) The date when the property at the described premises should 

be repaired, rebuilt or replaced with reasonable speed and 

similar quality;

(2) The date when business is resumed at a new permanent 

location; or

(3) Twelve consecutive months after the time of direct physical 

loss or damage.

23. Civil Authority coverage is described in the Policy as follows:

a. Civil Authority

In this Additional Coverage, Civil Authority, the described premises 

are premises to which this Coverage Form applies, as shown in the 

Declarations.

When a Covered Cause of Loss causes damage to property other than 

property at the described premises, we will pay for the actual loss of 

Business Income you sustain and necessary Extra Expense caused by 

action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described 

premises, provided that both of the following apply:

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:822
-7- 476701_2

(1) Access to the area immediately surrounding the damaged property 

is prohibited by civil authority as a result of the damage, and the 

described premises are within that area but are not more than one 

mile from the damaged property; and

(2) The action of civil authority is taken in response to dangerous 

physical conditions resulting from the damage or continuation of 

the Covered Cause of Loss that caused the damage, or the action is 

taken to enable a civil authority to have unimpeded access to the 

damaged property.

Civil Authority Coverage for Business Income will begin 72 hours 

after the time of the first action of civil authority that prohibits access 

to the described premises and will apply for a period of up to four 

consecutive weeks from the date on which such coverage began.

Civil Authority Coverage for Extra Expense will begin immediately 

after the time of the first action of civil authority that prohibits access 

to the described premises and will end:

(1) Four consecutive weeks after the date of that action; or

(2) When your Civil Authority Coverage for Business Income ends;

whichever is later.

24. The term “civil authority” is not defined in the Policy.

25. By virtue of an endorsement, the 72-hour waiting period for the above coverages 

is reduced to 24-hours.

26. “Covered Cause of Loss” in the Policy “means direct physical loss unless the loss 

is excluded or limited in this policy.”

27. While the Policy was in force, Plaintiff sustained, and continues to sustain, losses 

due to damage at, in, on, and/or around Plaintiff’s Insured Properties and retail mattress stores

because of the presence of the virus that causes COVID-19.

28. While the Policy was in force, Plaintiff sustained, and continues to sustain, loss 

due to the civil authority orders issued by the Governor of Illinois, the Illinois Department of 

Health, the Governor of Indiana, and the Indiana Department of Health.

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:823
-8- 476701_2

The Invalid “Virus Exclusion”

29. Pursuant to Illinois law, insurance companies issuing policies in Illinois are 

required to submit policy forms, endorsements, and exclusions (or proposed changes to any of 

the foregoing) to the Illinois Department of Insurance (“DOI”) for approval. Absent such 

approval, an insurer is not permitted to utilize the proposed form, endorsement, or exclusion in 

any policy issued in Illinois.

30. The Policy is based upon forms and endorsements prepared by Insurance Services 

Office, Inc. (“ISO”), an insurance industry services company that, among other things, prepares 

standardized insurance forms and endorsements for insurance companies and, on behalf of its 

members and subscribers, submits such forms to state regulators for approval.

31. After the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (“SARS”) in 2003, the 

insurance industry was hit with an avalanche of business interruption claims flowing from 

SARS. Insurers paid out millions of dollars in connection with such claims, including a reported 

$16 million paid to a single claimant.

32. As a result of the liability incurred by insurers for business interruption claims 

resulting from SARS, in or about 2006 ISO created a new policy endorsement, form number CP 

01 40 07 06, entitled “Exclusion of Loss Due to Virus or Bacteria” (the “Virus Endorsement”).

33. The Virus Endorsement is a standard ISO form utilized by Defendant and 

included in the Policy.

34. In or about 2006 or 2007, ISO, on behalf of various insurers including Defendant,

submitted the proposed Virus Endorsement to DOI for approval.

35. In connection with such submission to DOI, Defendant, acting through ISO, relied 

upon a circular prepared by ISO describing the background and reasoning for the submission of 

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:824
-9- 476701_2

the proposed Virus Endorsement. A true and correct copy of the ISO circular is attached hereto 

as Exhibit 2.

36. The ISO circular states:

Disease-causing agents may render a product impure (change its 

quality or substance), or enable the spread of disease by their 

presence on interior building surfaces or the surfaces of personal 

property. When disease-causing viral or bacterial contamination 

occurs, potential claims involve the cost of replacement of property 

(for example, the milk), cost of decontamination (for example, 

interior building surfaces), and business interruption (time 

element) losses.

See Ex. 2 at 5.

37. The ISO circular further claims:

While property policies have not been a source of recovery for 

losses involving contamination by disease-causing agents, the 

specter of pandemic or hitherto unorthodox transmission of 

infectious material raises the concern that insurers employing such 

policies may face claims in which there are efforts to expand 

coverage and to create sources of recovery for such losses, 

contrary to policy intent.

Id. at 6 (emphasis added).

38. In order to justify approval of the proposed Virus Endorsement by DOI without a 

corresponding reduction in insurance premiums to reflect reduced coverage under policies 

including the Virus Endorsement, Defendant, acting through ISO, falsely advised DOI that 

property policies had not previously been a source of recovery for losses resulting from diseasecausing agents such as viruses, the intent of such policies was never to cover such losses, and 

thus the Virus Endorsement was a mere clarification of existing coverage, as opposed to a 

reduction in coverage which would have required a reduction in insurance premiums.

39. Contrary to Defendant’s misrepresentations to DOI, however, policies have, in 

fact, been a source of recovery for losses from disease-causing agents. For instance, as noted 

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:825
-10- 476701_2

above, the insurance industry paid out millions of dollars for business interruption claims 

stemming from SARS. Likewise, policies had previously been a source of recovery for losses 

due to the presence of e coli and other health-threatening organisms.

40. Because Defendant falsely represented to DOI that the Virus Endorsement was 

merely a clarification of existing coverage and would not result in an alteration in coverage 

under property policies, Defendant is bound by such representations to the insurance regulator 

and, pursuant to regulatory estoppel, its property policies containing the Virus Endorsement are 

to be interpreted as providing the same coverage that existed even in the absence of the Virus 

Endorsement.

41. At minimum, the regulatory history of the Virus Endorsement demonstrates an 

ambiguity in the Policy with respect to the Virus Endorsement that must be resolved in favor of 

the insured, and any contention by Defendant that the Virus Endorsement precludes coverage 

should be rejected as being inconsistent with the representations made to DOI.

The COVID-19 Pandemic

42. COVID-19 is a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus which is a physical 

substance and human pathogen.

43. SARS-CoV-2 can be present outside the human body in viral fluid particles and 

can and does live on and/or remains capable of being transmitted and active on inert physical 

surfaces, including floors, walls, furniture, desks, tables, chairs, countertops, computer 

keyboards, touch screens, cardboard packages and other items of property for an extended period 

of time.

44. SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted by way of human contact with surfaces and 

items of physical property on which SARS-CoV-2 particles are physically present.

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:826
-11- 476701_2

45. COVID-19 can and has been contracted from SARS-CoV-2 transmitted by way of 

human contact with surfaces and items of physical property located at premises in Illinois and 

Indiana. 

46. The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 particles on physical property renders items of 

physical property unsafe, impairs its value, usefulness and/or normal function, and causes direct 

physical harm or loss to property.

47. The presence of any SARS-CoV-2 particles at or on real property renders the real 

property unsafe, thereby impairing the real property’s value, usefulness and/or normal function.

48. The presence of people who have contracted COVID-19 or carry the SARS-CoV2 virus renders physical property and premises in their vicinity unsafe and unusable, resulting in 

direct physical loss of or damage to that property and premises.

Illinois’ civil authority action and COVID-19

49. In response to the damage caused to persons and property because of the 

pandemic, the Governor of Illinois has issued multiple executive orders pursuant to the authority 

vested in him by the Illinois Constitution and the laws of Illinois.

50. Similarly, the Illinois Department of Health, pursuant to its authority under 

Illinois law, has issued multiple orders, including a Stay At Home Order.

51. Similarly, the City of Chicago, pursuant to its authority, has issued orders, 

including orders strictly prohibiting any public or private gathering of more than ten people. 

52. The State of Illinois is a civil authority as contemplated by the Policy.

53. The Illinois Department of Health is a civil authority as contemplated by the 

Policy.

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:827
-12- 476701_2

54. The Governor of the State of Illinois is a civil authority as contemplated by the 

Policy.

55. The City of Chicago is a civil authority as contemplated by the Policy.

56. The Mayor of Chicago is a civil authority as contemplated by the Policy.

57. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized the COVID-19 

outbreak as a pandemic.

58. On March 16, 2020, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker issued Executive Order 2020-

07. Executive Order 2020-07 prohibited all public and private gatherings of 50 people or more,

beginning March 18, 2020 and through the duration of the Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation, in 

addition other strict mandates. This order was in response to the physical damage caused by

COVID-19.

59. The stated goal of this order was to slow the spread of COVID-19 with the 

recognition that “frequently used surfaces in public settings...if not cleaned and disinfected 

frequently and properly, also pose a risk of exposure.”

60. On March 20, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued a Closure Order (Executive Order 

2020-10) (a.k.a., a Stay At Home Order) requiring all Illinois residents to stay at home barring 

exceptions for essential activities. Moreover, the March 20th order reduced the allowable public and 

private gathering size to no more than 10 people. The March 20th order was again in direct response 

to the continued and increasing presence of the coronavirus on property or around Plaintiff’s 

premises.

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:828
-13- 476701_2

Indiana civil authority action and COVID-19

61. On March 6, 2020, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb issued an executive order 

pursuant to the authority vested in him under Indiana law to declare a public health emergency 

in Indiana.

62. Governor Holcomb issued an order on March 16, 2020 prohibiting all in-person 

events of more than fifty people due to COVID-19 and the pandemic. He followed this with a 

“Stay at Home” order issued on March 23, 2020, directing all non-essential businesses to close 

and prohibiting all gatherings of more than ten people. 

63. The State of Indiana is a civil authority as contemplated by the Policy.

64. The Governor of the State of Indiana is a civil authority as contemplated by the 

Policy.

Civil Authority Action in Illinois and Indiana caused Plaintiff’s Businesses to close

65. The State of Illinois and the State of Indiana, through their respective governors

and departments of health, have issued, and continue to issue, authoritative orders governing 

businesses located in their states, including Plaintiff’s, in response to the property damage caused 

by COVID-19, the effect of which have caused Plaintiff to cease operations at, and have 

prohibited access to, the premises described in the Policy.

66. Plaintiff has sustained loss and damage as a direct and proximate result of the 

orders issued by the Governor of Illinois, the Illinois Department of Health, the Governor of 

Indiana and the Indiana Department of Health.

67. Plaintiff submitted a timely insurance claim to Defendant.

68. Defendant has denied Plaintiff’s claim.

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:829
-14- 476701_2

COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

69. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 71 above as if fully set forth herein.

70. Pursuant to 28 U.SC. § 2201:

In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, . . . any court 

of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, 

may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested 

party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or 

could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and 

effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as 

such.

71. An actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and Defendant as to whether 

Plaintiff is entitled to coverage under the Policy for losses sustained and to be sustained in the 

future.

72. A declaratory judgment as to these questions would terminate the controversy, or 

some portion thereof, giving rise to this proceeding.

73. Plaintiff is entitled to and demands a declaration that:

a. Plaintiff sustained direct physical loss or damage to property at their premises 

described in the Policy as a result of COVID-19 and/or the pandemic;

b. the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the community and on the premises is a covered 

cause of loss under the Policy;

c. the pandemic is a covered cause of loss under the Policy;

d. the losses incurred by Plaintiff as the result of the above-referenced orders issued 

by governmental authorities are covered losses under the Policy;

e. Defendant has not and cannot prove the application of any exclusion or limitation 

to the coverage for Plaintiff’s losses alleged herein;

f. Plaintiff is entitled to coverage for its past and future Business Income loss(es) and 

Extra Expense resulting from property damage at its premises due to SARS-CoV-2 

for the time period set forth in the Policy;

g. Plaintiff is entitled to coverage for loss(es) due to the actions of civil authorities in

Illinois and Indiana; and

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:830
-15- 476701_2

h. Plaintiff has coverage for any substantially similar civil authority order in the 

future that limits or restricts the access to Plaintiff’s places of business and/or their 

operations.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter a declaratory judgment 

in its favor and against Defendant as set forth herein, and for such other and further relief the 

Court deems just or proper, including attorney fees, interest, and costs as allowed by law or in 

the exercise of the Court’s equitable jurisdiction.

Dated: December 16, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

AFM MATTRESS COMPANY, LLC

By: /s/ Bryan D. King

One of its attorneys

Glenn L. Udell (ARDC # 6206064)

Michael S. Pomerantz (ARDC # 6205384)

Bryan King (ARDC # 6279203)

Brown, Udell, Pomerantz & Delrahim, Ltd.

225 W. Illinois Street, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60654

312-475-9900

gudell@bupdlaw.com

mpomerantz@bupdlaw.com

bking@bupdlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:831
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 16, 2020, I electronically filed the attached First 

Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Other Relief with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois using the CM/ECF system reflecting service upon all parties 

of record.

By: /s/ Bryan D. King

Glenn L. Udell (ARDC # 6206064)

Michael S. Pomerantz (ARDC # 6205384)

Bryan King (ARDC # 6279203)

Brown, Udell, Pomerantz & Delrahim, Ltd.

225 W. Illinois Street, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60654

312-475-9900

gudell@bupdlaw.com

mpomerantz@bupdlaw.com

bking@bupdlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03556 Document #: 28 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:832