1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHEN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

MORGAN KUDRLE, INDIVIDUALLY & )

AS PARENT & NEXT FRIEND OF MICHAEL )

ROCCI, III, A MINOR, )

)

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 )

 )

)

 vs. No.

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

AUTUMN FIELDS HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-for-profit 

corporation, JOHN BLOHM, 

as Agent for BOARD OF DIRECTORS of 

AUTUMN FIELDS HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, & NEMANICH 

CONSULTING MANAGEMENT, INC., an 

Illinois Corporation,

Defendants. 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MORGAN KUDRLE, Individually, and as Parent and next friend of MICHAEL 

ROCCI, III, a minor (“PLAINTIFFS”), by and through their attorneys of, WEISS ORTIZ, P.C., and 

for their complaint against AUTUMN FIELDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, an Illinois not-forprofit corporation, and DON BLOHM, as Agent for BOARD OF DIRECTORS of AUTUMN FIELDS 

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, & NEMANICH CONSULTING MANAGEMENT, INC., an 

Illinois Corporation, (“DEFENDANTS”), states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1
2

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1345 and 42 U.S.C. 3613(a). Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. 3613(a), as defendants are located in this judicial district and the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district.

NATURE OF ACTION

Morgan brings this action on her behalf and on behalf of her minor child, Michael, as 

parent and next friend, to enforce Sections 42 USC 3604(a) and 3604(c) of the Fair Housing Act, 

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 

1988, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631 and state causes of action. Morgan and Michael are “aggrieved 

persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i). 

THE PARTIES 

1. Complainant, MORGAN KUDRLE (“Morgan”), is a single mother, who resides 

in San Marcos, California.

2. Complainant, MICHAEL J. ROCCI III (“Michael”) a minor, is the son of 

MORGAN and DAVID ROCCI.

3. Defendant, AUTUMN FIELDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 

(“ASSOCIATION”), Plaintiff, is at all times relevant an Illinois common interest community 

association and not-for-profit corporation that administers residential property in Plainfield, 

Illinois pursuant to its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Easements, Restrictions and 

Amendments thereto (“Declaration”). A copy of the Declaration and By-Laws is attached hereto 

as Exhibit A. A copy of Amendment to Declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Board 

of Directors of Autumn Fields Homeowners Association (“Board”) is the entity that administers, 

manages, and controls the affairs of the ASSOCIATION.

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
3

4. Respondent, JOHN BLOHM, as agent for the BOARD of DIRECTORS, of Autumn 

Fields Homeowners Association, administers, manages, and controls the affairs of the 

ASSOCIATION.

5. Respondent, NEMANICH CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT, INC. (“NEMANICH 

CONSULTING” or “NEMANICH”), is an Illinois corporation specializing in property 

management with its principle place of business located at 2756 Caton Farm Road, Joliet, IL 

60453 and at all times relevant operated as agent of the ASSOCIATION and or acted on their 

own. 

6. DAVID ROCCI, at all times relevant, is an individual and owner of record of the 

real property commonly known as 2405 White Ash Court, Plainfield, Illinois 60586 (“Subject 

Property”). 

Governing Instruments

7. In addition to the Declaration and Amendments thereto, the ASSOCIATION is 

additionally governed by its By-laws, rules, other governing instruments, as well as the Illinois 

Common Interest Community Association Act, 765 ILCS § 160/1, et seq., and the Illinois 

General Not For Profit Corporations Act of 1986, 805 ILCS 105/1 et. seq. 

8. Paragraph 12.1 of the Declaration, Article 12, General Provisions, provides in 

relevant part:

Enforcement: *** If any Owner, or his guests, violates any provisions of 

this Declaration, the Articles of Incorporation, the By-Laws, or the rules 

and regulations of the Association, the Board may, after affording the 

Owner an opportunity to be heard, levy a reasonable fine against such 

Owner***. 

See Exhibit A. 

9. Thus, the ASSOCIATION’S and/or BOARD’S own Declaration require that any 

Owner who is in violation of the Declaration and related governing instruments be provided an 

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
4

opportunity to be heard before exacting a reasonable fine.

10. Paragraph 6 to the Amendment to Declaration provides in relevant part: 

In the event the owner of a dwelling unit permits his/her dwelling unit to 

become non-owner occupied without complying with the provisions of this 

Amendment to the Declaration, or in the event occupant(s) of the dwelling 

unit, in the sole judgment of the Board, becomes a habitual or continual 

violator of the Declaration, By Laws or Rules and Regulations of the 

Association, the Board, after service of a 30-day notice of violation of this 

Amendment to the Declaration upon the occupant(s) and the dwelling unit 

owner, by personal delivery or by certified mail, return receipt requested, 

and the failure of the occupant to vacate the dwelling unit within such 30-

day period, may initiate a forcible entry and detainer action against the 

occupant and/or the dwelling unit owner, and all dwelling unit owners 

hereby consent to the bringing of such action in their name. As an 

alternative, the Association may seek a restraining order against the 

occupant and the dwelling unit owner to prevent the dwelling unit from 

continuing to be non-owner occupied. All attorney's fees and court costs 

shall be assessed to the dwelling unit owner of the dwelling unit in 

violation of the provisions of this Amendment, and if such costs and fees 

are not paid, they may be the subject of a lien of' the Association against 

the dwelling unit and may be collected using all remedies available for the 

collection of delinquent assessments.

Emphasis added. See Exhibit B.

FACTS

11. Morgan is prohibited from moving in with David and Michael due to the 

Association’s discriminatory restriction: 

A. Restriction on Leasing: No Dwelling Unit shall be leased or otherwise 

occupied by a non-owner of a Dwelling Unit except as specifically provided 

herein.

1. Definitions. The following words are defined as follows:

a. "Owner occupied dwelling unit" shall be any Dwelling Unit

which is occupied by one or more titleholders. A titleholder

shall mean the bolder of a fee interest, a beneficiary or land

trust or shareholder of a corporation holding a fee interest in

the' dwelling unit. Dwelling Units in which "immediate family

members" of a titleholder reside, shall also be considered owner

occupied dwelling units.

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
5

b. "Non-owner-occupied dwelling unit" shall mean all dwelling

units except those which are owner occupied units. Amendment to 

declaration for autumn Fields Homeowner, recorded 4/21/08.

See Full Amendment to Declaration attached as Exhibit C. 

12. On or about July 10, 2018, David sought permission from Defendants’ for 

MORGAN, his significant other, who was then pregnant with their child, to be allowed to move 

into the Subject Property. At the time, Morgan and her children resided in a rental apartment in 

San Marcos, California with a July 31, 2018 lease expiration. 

13. On or about August 3, 2018, DAVID again requested Plaintiff’s permission that 

MORGAN and her children be allowed to move into the Subject Property. 

14. On August 3, 2018, the ASSOCIATION denied DAVID’S the VARIANCE 

REQUEST. 

15. On August 13, 2018, due to Plaintiff’s denial of DAVID’S VARIANCE 

REQUEST, DAVID was forced to renew the California apartment lease for MORGAN plus pay 

for utilities.

16. From September 1, 2018 through November 30, 2018, Morgan experienced 

debilitating premature contractions due to the stress of not being able to be with David, the father 

of her child. 

17. On December 1, 2018, Morgan gave birth prematurely. 

18. On December 28, 2018, David traveled with Morgan, their infant child,

Morgan’s mother and the two children from Morgan’s prior marriage to the Subject Property to 

try once again try to resolve the matter of the VARIANCE REQUEST with Defendants, to no 

avail.

19. On January 17, 2019, DAVID was notified that the ASSOCAITION had agreed 

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
6

to allow Morgan and the kids move into the unit and it will not be deemed to be a violation of 

the leasing restriction amendment. However, the ASSOCATION did not provide a formal 

variance or any details how the variance would operate or how long it would last. By this time 

Morgan and DAVID already had extended the California lease to prevent them from being 

homeless.

20. On about January 2019, Morgan received a preliminary diagnosis of post-partum 

depression due to the stress of not being able to be with David and Michael as a family and not 

having a viable living situation. 

21. A violation of the Fair Housing Act continues to date because Morgan and her son 

cannot move in with David due to the “non-owner occupancy” rule that still exits unchanged.

22. Defendants have been selective in its enforcement of its rules and By-laws. 

23. There are non-owners that reside in homes in violation of the Declaration and 

Amendment and for which the ASSOCIATION and/or BOARD has not similarly sought 

injunctive relief.

24. In the instant matter, the following Association members either rent their home 

and or reside in their home with their partner/spouse who is not on title and otherwise in breach 

of the Bylaws, Amendment & Declaration, by not complying with the definition of “Owner 

Occupied: 

a. RINANDO, LISA, 2404 WHITE ASH CT, PLAINFIELD, IL 60586, 

b. RICHTER, CHRISTOPHER, 2407 WHITE ASH CT, PLAINFIELD, IL 60586 

c. HESBON, BRUCE J, 2409 WHITE ASH CT, PLAINFIELD, IL 60586

d. ALLISON, WILLIAM G JR, 2511 RED OAK DR, PLAINFIELD, IL 60544 

e. BLOHM, JOHN, 7506 LOCUST LN, PLAINFIELD, IL 60544 

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
7

f. SCHMIDT, LENA M, 7517 LOCUST LN, PLAINFIELD, IL 60544 

COUNT I

Violation based on sex under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a)

25. The Plaintiffs adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1 – 24 as if fully set forth herein. 

26. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful, because of ..., sex, ..., to impose 

different terms, conditions, or privileges, related to the sale or rental of a building. 42 U.S.C. §§ 

3604-06; 24 CFR §§ 100.50 – 100.205. Section 3603 of this title and except as exempted by 

sections 3603(b) and 3607 of this title, it shall be unlawful--

(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to 

refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or 

deny, a dwelling to any person because of sex..., familial status... Id.

(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or 

privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or 

facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial 

status, or national origin. 42 USC §3603Defendants refused or otherwise made 

unavailable or denied a dwelling to Morgan on the basis of her sex, in violation 

of Section 3604(a) of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).

27. MORGAN is an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i). 

28. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, Morgan has suffered damages. 

29. Defendants’ discriminatory actions and refusal to allow MORGAN to move in 

with David, were intentional, willful, and taken in disregard of her federally protected rights. 

WHEREFORE, Complainants requests the following relief: 

A. An investigative declaration that the discriminatory conduct of 

Defendants, as set forth above, violates the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-

3631. 

B. discriminating on the basis of sex or familial status in violation of 

the Fair Housing Act, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631.

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
8

i. order the Defendants to take such affirmative steps as may be 

necessary to prevent the recurrence of any discriminatory conduct in the 

future and to eliminate, to the extent practicable, the effects of their 

unlawful practices; and 

ii. failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to 

restore, as nearly as practicable, Morgan and her minor child to the position 

they would have been in but for the discriminatory conduct. 

C. Award money damages in an amount to be determined plus an award of 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this suit and for such additional relief as the interests of 

justice may require.

COUNT II

Violation based on familial status of the Fair Housing Act

42 U.S.C. § 3604(a), 3602(k) and 24 CFR §§ 100.50.

30. The Plaintiffs adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1 – 29 as if fully set forth herein. 

31. Defendants Refused or otherwise made unavailable or denied a dwelling to 

Morgan and her child Michael, on the basis of familial status, in violation of Section 42 U.S.C. 

§ 3604(a)(k).

32. Morgan and Michael are “aggrieved persons” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 

3602(i). 

33. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory rule and conduct, Morgan and Michael 

cannot live together in David’s home. 

34. Defendants’ discriminatory actions and refusal to allow Morgan and Michael to 

move in with David, were intentional, willful, and taken in disregard of their federally protected

rights. 

35. Section 100.50(b)(3) makes it illegal to “engage in any conduct relating to the 

provision of housing which otherwise makes unavailable or denies dwellings to persons because 

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
9

of familial status... See 24 CFR §§ 100.50.

WHEREFORE, Morgan and Michael request the following relief: 

A. that the court declare that Defendants engaged in discriminatory conduct of 

Defendants, as set forth above, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601(a) & (k); 

B. that the court declare that Defendants discriminated on the basis of familial status 

in violation of 24 CFR §§ 100.50; 

a. order Defendants to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to prevent 

the recurrence of any discriminatory conduct in the future and to eliminate, to the extent 

practicable, the effects of their unlawful practices; and 

b. failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to restore, 

as nearly as practicable, Morgan and Michael to the position they would have been in but for the 

discriminatory conduct. 

c. Award money damages in an amount to be determined, plus an award of 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this suit and for such additional relief as the interests of 

justice may require.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT

DISPARATE TREATMENT

36. The Plaintiffs adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1 – 35 as if fully set forth herein. 

37. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful, because of ..., sex, ... familial 

status, to impose different terms, conditions, or privileges, related to the sale or rental of a 

building. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604. Section 3604 makes it illegal to “engage in any conduct relating to 

the provision of housing which otherwise makes unavailable or denies dwellings to persons 

because of familial status... 24 CFR §§ 100.50. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
10

38. Under the FHA, plaintiffs who allege disparate treatment must “simply produce 

direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not 

motivated” the defendant and that the defendant's actions adversely affected the plaintiff in some 

way. See also Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985) (“[T]he 

McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of 

discrimination.”);1 

39. Defendants intentionally treated Complainants differently when the Association 

members and other owners either rented their home and or reside in their homes with their 

partner/spouse who are not on title and otherwise in breach of the Bylaws, Amendment & 

Declaration, by not complying with the definition of “Owner Occupied”. Below are sample 

violators with no action taken against them by the Defendants:

a. RINANDO, LISA, 2404 WHITE ASH CT, PLAINFIELD, IL 60586, 

b. RICHTER, CHRISTOPHER, 2407 WHITE ASH CT, PLAINFIELD, IL 60586 

c. HESBON, BRUCE J, 2409 WHITE ASH CT, PLAINFIELD, IL 60586

d. ALLISON, WILLIAM G JR, 2511 RED OAK DR, PLAINFIELD, IL 60544 

e. BLOHM, JOHN, 7506 LOCUST LN, PLAINFIELD, IL 60544 

f. SCHMIDT, LENA M, 7517 LOCUST LN, PLAINFIELD, IL 60544 

Defendants, knew or should have known that these owners were in violation of the “Owner 

Occupied” rule and no adverse action has been taken against any of the owners listed above.

1 A complaint must contain “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 

(2007). The Seventh Circuit reiterated that “[it] does not take much to allege discrimination.” 

Wigginton v. Bank of Am. Corp., 770 F.3d 521, 522 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing Swierkiewicz v. 

Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S. Ct. 992 (2002) (holding that a plaintiff alleging disparate 

treatment need not plead a prima facie case); Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 405 (7th 

Cir. 2010) (holding that plaintiff who alleged “the type of discrimination that she thinks 

occur[ed] ... by whom ... and when” had stated a plausible FHA claim)). One “essential 

allegation” in an FHA complaint is “that someone else has been treated differently.” Id

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
11

40. Plaintiffs and David have been treated disparately from the above listed Association 

members because of MORGAN’s sex and familial status.

41. David put the Association and/or BOARD and or NEMANICH on notice of the 

disparate treatment and to date have done nothing. The ASSOCIATION and/or BOARD, 

through its agent, NEMANICH CONSULTING knew of the disparate treatment. The 

ASSOCIATION and/or BOARD, through the Declaration, Amendments thereto By-Laws and 

governing statutes had the authority to take prompt corrective action. The Association and/or 

BOARD failed to take any action to investigate same and failed to take prompt corrective action. 

As a result of the disparate treatment, Morgan and David altered their conduct, including vacating 

his residence and listing it for sale. 

 42. Under the FHA, the ASSOCIATION and/or BOARD are liable for third party 

misconduct against Plaintiffs and David. As a direct and proximate result of one, more than 

one, or all of the foregoing acts or omissions on the part of Defendants, BLOHM and 

NEMANICH, as agents for the BOARD of DIRECTORS, of Autumn Fields Homeowners 

Association, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including but not limited to loss of housing, 

emotional distress and physical pain and anguish; MORGAN has incurred and become liable for 

medical attention, care, treatment, and services and has incurred costs for alternate housing. 

WHEREFORE, Morgan and Michael requests the following relief: 

A. that the court declares that Defendants disparately treated Morgan and David, as 

set forth above, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601(a) & 

3602(k).

a. order the Defendants to take such affirmative steps as may be 

necessary to prevent the recurrence of any discriminatory conduct in the future and to eliminate, 

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11
12

to the extent practicable, the effects of their unlawful practices; and 

b. failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to restore, 

as nearly as practicable, Morgan and Michael to the position they would have been in but for the 

discriminatory conduct. 

c. Award money damages in an amount to be determined and plus an award of

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this suit and for such additional relief as the interests of 

justice may require.

COUNT IV

NEGLIGENCE

(Autumn Fields Homeowners Association, 

John Blohm as Agent for the Board of Directors of Autumn Fields Homeowners 

Association and Nemanich Consulting) 

43. Plaintiffs adopts and incorporates paragraphs 1 – 42 as if fully set forth herein.

44. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiffs to act with the utmost care in carrying out their

functions and duties as Board members and manager for the Homeowners Association pursuant 

to 765 ILCS 160/1-1, et. seq. 

45. Defendants breached their duty by: 

a) failing to comply with the Homeowners declaration and by-laws,

b) by selectively enforcing their rules,

c) by granting retroactive approval of violations and a waiver of the 

Homeowners declaration and by-laws to certain unit owners in violation 

therein,

d) By discriminating against Plaintiff Morgan based on her sex and familial 

status,

e) By engaging in misleading, fraudulent, and negligent conduct,

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12
13

f) By not complying with the Illinois Common Interest Community 

Association Act,

g) By acting outside the scope of authority granted to them by the Illinois 

Common Interest Community Association Act.

46. As a direct and proximate result of one, more than one, or all of the foregoing acts 

or omissions on the part of Defendants, BLOHM, as agent for the BOARD of DIRECTORS, of 

Autumn Fields Homeowners Association and Nemanich Consulting,2 Morgan and Michael have

suffered damages, including but not limited to out of pocket damages, physical pain and Morgan 

has incurred and become liable for medical care, treatment, medical services and has incurred 

costs for alternate housing. 

47. The aforesaid breaches have caused Plaintiff to suffer damages in the form of 

emotional distress, mental anguish, and loss of the use and enjoyment of their home.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, requests that this court enter a judgment against 

Defendants, award money damages in an amount to be determined and for such 

additional relief as the interests of justice may require.

Date: June 29, 2020

 Respectfully submitted,

MORGAN KUDRLE AND MICHAEL 

ROCCI, III, A MINOR,

By:

ADEENA WEISS ORTIZ

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2

[W]here a fiduciary relationship does not exist as a matter of law, such a relationship may exist 

where one party, due to the facts of the particular situation and a close relationship, relies very 

heavily on the judgment of another. Gary-Wheaton Bank v. Burt, 104 Ill. App. 3d 767, 774, 433 

N.E.2d 315, 60 Ill. Dec. 518 (2d Dist. 1982). 

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13
14

Weiss Ortiz, P.C.

1011 East 31st Street 

La Grange Park, IL 60604

Phone: (773) 498-4498

Fax: (312) 276-3040

info@weissortizlaw.com

#6278679

Case: 1:20-cv-03827 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14