1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

Brian Towne )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 20 CV 4097

)

v. )

) Honorable Judge Coleman

Karen Donnelly, George Mueller, Brian )

Vescogni, Matthew Kidder, David Gualandri,)

Jeremiah Adams, Scott Cruz, Randy Baxter, )

City of Ottawa, and County of LaSalle, ) Jury Trial Demanded

)

Defendants. )

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Brian Towne, through his attorneys Hale & Monico, complains of 

Defendants Karen Donnelly, George Mueller, Brian Vescogni, Matthew Kidder, 

David Gualandri, Jeremiah Adams, Scott Cruz, Randy Baxter, City of Ottawa, and 

the County of LaSalle, and states as follows:

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff Brian Towne is the former State’s Attorney for LaSalle County, 

Illinois. In November 2016, Plaintiff lost a hotly contested election against Defendant 

Karren Donnelly, who was subsequently sworn in as LaSalle County State’s 

Attorney.

2. Defendant Donnelly, not satisfied with prevailing at the ballot, initiated an 

investigation into her election opponent, Plaintiff. Defendant Donnelly’s motivation 

was entirely a personal and political one and was both an abuse of her office and a 

betrayal of the trust of the citizens of LaSalle County who voted for her in the election.
2

3. Defendant Donnelly enlisted into her scheme several of her subordinates in the 

State’s Attorney’s Office, two officers with the Ottawa Police Department, and a 

retired police officer to assist her. Far from dissuading Defendant Donnelly from 

pursuing this political vendetta, these seven individuals assisted Defendant Donnelly 

in obtaining criminal indictments against Plaintiff that were not supported by facts 

or the law. 

4. Plaintiff spent nearly two years fighting the criminal prosecution. On August 

2, 2019, all of the criminal charges against Plaintiff were dismissed.

5. Plaintiff Brian Towne brings this lawsuit not only to seek redress for the 

violations of his rights but also to bring to light Karen Donnelly’s violation of the 

public trust and the abuse of the powers of her office in retaliating against political 

opponents.

PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff Brian Towne is the former LaSalle County State’s Attorney and a 

resident of LaSalle County, Illinois.

7. Defendant Karen Donnelly is the current LaSalle County State’s Attorney and 

a resident of LaSalle County, Illinois. During the relevant time, Defendant Donnelly 

acted within the scope of her employment and under color of law. Defendant Donnelly 

is sued in her individual capacity.

8. Defendant George Mueller was, during the relevant time, an Assistant State’s 

Attorney with the LaSalle County State’s Attorney’s Office and acted within the scope 
3

of his employment and under color of law. Defendant Mueller is sued in his individual 

capacity.

9. Defendant Brian Vescogni was, during the relevant time, an Assistant State’s 

Attorney with the LaSalle County State’s Attorney’s Office and acted within the scope 

of his employment and under color of law. Defendant Vescogni is sued in his 

individual capacity.

10. Defendant Matthew Kidder was, during the relevant time, an Assistant State’s 

Attorney with the LaSalle County State’s Attorney’s Office and acted within the scope 

of his employment and under color of law. Defendant Kidder is sued in his individual 

capacity.

11. Defendant David Gualandri was, during the relevant time, a law enforcement 

officer employed by the Police Department of the City of Ottawa. He acted under color 

of law and within the scope of his employment. Defendant Gualandri is sued in his 

individual capacity.

12. Defendant Jeremiah Adams was, during the relevant time, employed as an 

Assistant State’s Attorney with the LaSalle County State’s Attorney’s Office and 

acted within the scope of his employment and under color of law. Defendant Adams 

is sued in his individual capacity.

13. Defendant Scott Cruz was, during the relevant time, employed as a law 

enforcement officer with the Police Department of the City of Ottawa and acted 

within the scope of his employment and under color of law. Defendant Cruz is sued 

in his individual capacity.
4

14. Defendant Randy Baxter was, during the relevant time, employed by LaSalle 

County as an investigator for the LaSalle County State’s Attorney’s Office. In that 

role, Baxter acted under color of law and within the scope of his employment. 

Defendant Baxter is sued in his individual capacity.

15. City of Ottawa, Illinois is a municipal corporation organized and doing 

business under the laws of the State of Illinois. During the relevant time, City of 

Ottawa employed Defendant Gualandri and Cruz as law enforcement officers with 

the Ottawa Police Department.

16. County of LaSalle is a municipal corporation organized and doing business 

under the laws of the State of Illinois. During the relevant time, County of LaSalle 

employed Defendants Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, and Adams as assistant state’s 

attorneys and Defendant Baxter as an investigator.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

17. This action arises under the laws of the United States, particularly the Civil 

Rights Act, Title 42 of the United States Code, Sections 1983 and 1988, and under 

the laws of the State of Illinois.

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

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

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

1367.

19. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois, Eastern Division, under Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 

1391(b)(2), as the events complained of occurred within this district.
5

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

20. In 1992, Plaintiff fulfilled a lifelong dream and was hired as an assistant state’s 

attorney with the LaSalle State’s Attorney’s Office (“SAO”).

21. In 2006, Plaintiff was appointed LaSalle County State’s Attorney when Joseph 

Hettel was appointed as a circuit court judge.

22. Plaintiff was duly elected State’s Attorney in his own right in 2008 and again 

in 2012 as a Democrat.

23. In 2012, Defendant Donnelly was a law clerk in the SAO.

24. In April 2012, Donnelly’s son Cody was indicted by the LaSalle County State’s 

Attorney’s Office for criminal offenses. 

25. While in her role as a law clerk, Defendant Donnelly made numerous attempts 

to improperly access the State’s Attorney’s file on the criminal prosecution of her son 

despite being repeatedly informed that she was not permitted to view the file due to 

the conflict.

26. Eventually, Plaintiff had to physically lock the file away to prevent Defendant 

Donnelly from accessing it.

27. Cody eventually entered a guilty plea to the criminal charges and was

sentenced to four years in prison.

28. Based on her subsequent actions, it is apparent that Defendant Donnelly’s 

personal grudge against Plaintiff started with the SAO’s prosecution of Defendant’s 

son.

29. Upon completion of law school, Defendant Donnelly applied for an entry-level 

position with the SAO. Due to a poor work ethic and personality disputes with 
6

members of his staff, Plaintiff did not hire Defendant Donnelly as an assistant state’s 

attorney.

30. In the Fall of 2015, Defendant Donnelly announced her candidacy for State’s 

Attorney as a Republican. Defendant Donnelly began making attacks on Plaintiff

that went far beyond typical campaigning. 

31. Defendant Donnelly was assisted in her campaign by Defendant Mueller (who 

was Donnelly’s boss at the time) and a local attorney named Julie Ajster, whose fiancé 

had been criminally prosecuted by the SAO when Plaintiff was the LaSalle County 

State’s Attorney.

32. Defendant Donnelly’s campaign became nasty against Plaintiff. This included 

personal attacks against Plaintiff’s character and allegations of criminal conduct.

33. In November 2016, Defendant Donnelly won the election for LaSalle County 

State’s Attorney against Plaintiff. Defendant Donnelly was sworn in as State’s 

Attorney on December 1, 2016.

34. On March 22, 2017, Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, and Kidder, as 

well as Jeremiah Adams, participated in a meeting with Defendant Gualandri. 

During this meeting, Defendant Donnelly stated she and her office (namely the 

aforementioned assistant state’s attorneys) had been conducting an investigation into 

Plaintiff’s conduct as State’s Attorney and requested Defendant Gualandri continue 

the investigation.

35. Plaintiff and Defendant Gualandri had previously been in conflict over 

charging an individual for criminal acts. Plaintiff declined to charge the individual 
7

based on the evidence and Defendant Gualandri, who wanted the individual charged, 

subsequently supported Defendant Donnelly during the 2016 election.

36. It is well-established that the investigation of a former State’s Attorney or 

Assistant State’s Attorney by the office they were formerly part of is highly 

problematic and creates the appearance of bias.

37. As such, there are multiple options available to prevent such a conflict. The 

Office of the Attorney General and other State’s Attorneys for other counties could 

have been requested by the LaSalle County SAO to investigate the claims against 

Plaintiff. The LaSalle County SAO could also have asked a court to appoint a Special 

Prosecutor to investigate the claims against Plaintiff.

38. Defendant Donnelly chose to forego these options and instead chose to 

personally investigate Plaintiff with the assistance of Defendants Mueller, Vescogni, 

Kidder, and Adams. 

39. Defendant Donnelly also chose to involve Defendant Gualandri – likely due to 

his prior conflict with Plaintiff and his support of Donnelly during the election – and 

two other individuals (Defendants Scott and Baxter) to investigate Plaintiff, rather 

than request the investigation be completed by a law enforcement agency with no 

prior connection to the former LaSalle County State’s Attorney.

40. This investigation – and subsequent criminal prosecution – was wholly 

political and motivated by personal animosity towards Plaintiff.

41. Indeed, during a meeting, Defendant Mueller stated that all they needed was 

one shred of evidence against Plaintiff to pursue this political prosecution.
8

42. It is readily apparent that these prosecutors ignored their responsibility to 

seek justice and instead abused their authority to persecute Plaintiff. They expended 

and wasted time, energy, and taxpayer resources in pursuing this personal and 

political vendetta.

43. Either during this initial meeting or during the subsequent investigation, 

Defendants came to an agreement to falsely prosecute Plaintiff and committed overt

acts in furtherance of that conspiracy.

44. Defendant Gualandri, Cruz, and Baxter were willing participants in this fraud 

of an investigation. Upon information and belief, these three officers interviewed 

witnesses who made exculpatory and/or favorable statements about Plaintiff. 

45. Defendant Gualandri, Cruz, and Baxter did not document these statements 

and, instead, concealed the fact that such interviews took place. This information was 

never disclosed to Plaintiff during his criminal prosecution.

46. Throughout the investigation, Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Kidder, and 

Adams continued to be intimately involved. Upon information and belief, Defendant 

Donnelly transported a witness to be interviewed and sat in during her statement to 

the officers. Likewise, Defendant Kidder was present during at least one of the

witness interviews that was concealed from Plaintiff.

47. Upon information and belief, an employee with the LaSalle County State’s 

Attorney’s Office gave a statement favorable to Plaintiff. Defendants – acting jointly 

in furtherance of the conspiracy – hid this favorable statement and did not document 

it in any report. In addition, Defendant Donnelly then terminated the county 
9

employee. The firing of this employee by Defendant Donnelly caused other county 

employees to fear for their jobs and led to any statements being made under coercion 

and fear of termination.

48. Ultimately, Defendants’ investigation did not reveal criminal acts by Plaintiff.

49. However, the facts were beside the point and, notwithstanding the lack of any 

probable cause or evidence of wrongdoing, Defendants then conspired to frame 

Plaintiff and subject to him criminal prosecution. Per that agreement, Defendant 

Gualandri included false statements in his report and omitted material, exculpatory

evidence and witness statements.

50. The other Defendants knew of Defendant Gualandri’s false and omitted 

evidence.

51. Defendants chose to present the “case” to the Grand Jury knowing full well 

that any “inculpatory” evidence was false and there was no probable cause to charge 

Plaintiff with any criminal act.

52. In September 2017, Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, and Kidder presented 

“evidence” to the Grand Jury. 

53. Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, and Adams were personally 

involved in the investigation prior to the presentment of the matter to the Grand 

Jury. This included being involved in providing guidance to the investigating officers 

and participating in witness interrogations. As such, these prosecutors acted as 

investigators and not merely prosecutors and do not have any immunity from this 

suit.
10

54. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gualandri testified and made 

numerous false statements in an attempt to obtain an indictment, which was

ultimately secured. Such misconduct was done pursuant to the Defendant’s 

conspiracy against Plaintiff.

55. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, and 

Kidder made misstatements to the Grand Jury in their attempt to obtain an 

indictment.

56. The indictments obtained by Defendants were not supported by probable 

cause.

57. The conduct by Defendants was not in the interests of justice. Rather, it was 

done to settle a political score against Plaintiff. 

58. Upon being informed of the indictments, Plaintiff surrendered himself. 

Plaintiff was subsequently placed on a $50,000 bond and his freedom of movement 

was limited due to the pending criminal charges.

59. In October 2017, Defendants re-presented the “case” to the Grand Jury to 

secure amended indictments. As with those returned in September, these indictments 

were not supported by probable cause and based solely on false and misleading 

testimony.

60. In the criminal proceeding, Plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of a 

special prosecutor and the motion was granted on November 28, 2017.

61. Greg McClintock was appointed Special Prosecutor on February 14, 2018. 
11

62. Defendants Donnelly and Mueller filed a notice of appeal of the court’s decision 

to appoint a special prosecutor. Defendants Donnelly and Mueller had no legal basis 

to do so. Indeed, Defendants Donnelly and Mueller knew they had no basis for an 

appeal (which was premised on civil procedure despite this being a criminal 

prosecution) but proceeded with the appeal regardless. Upon information and belief, 

Defendant Mueller admitted to a third party that they knew they would lose the 

appeal but would petition the Illinois Supreme Court for review because it was an 

“interesting” issue.

63. In December 2018, while Defendant Donnelly’s frivolous appeal was pending, 

Plaintiff filed a speedy trial demand. 

64. In March 2019, the appellate court denied Defendant Donnelly’s appeal and 

found there was no jurisdiction for the appeal. 

65. Such a holding was not surprising as a second-year law student could see 

Defendant Donnelly’s appeal was without merit. 

66. In June 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Defendant Donnelly’s petition 

for leave to appeal. 

67. On July 19, 2019, the trial court heard argument over Plaintiff’s motion to 

dismiss on grounds that his right to a speedy trial was violated by Defendant 

Donnelly’s frivolous appeal of the appointment of the special prosecutor as Plaintiff 

had not been brought to trial in a timely manner. 

68. On August 2, 2019, the trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion and all criminal 

charges against Plaintiff were dismissed. 
12

69. On August 6, 2019, Defendant Donnelly filed a motion to be re-instated as 

prosecutor for the case; this motion had no legal merit. 

70. Defendant Donnelly’s motion was denied by the trial court and Defendant 

Donnelly made inflammatory statements to the media and accused the Special 

Prosecutor of having improper motives. On the contrary, Defendants were the ones 

with the improper motives and had stretched out this malicious prosecution for years. 

71. Prior to the dismissal of the case, Defendant Donnelly had made false 

statements about the criminal prosecution, including stating that Plaintiff had 

committed the criminal conduct. 

72. Even after the case was dismissed, Defendant Donnelly continued to make 

false statements to the media about Plaintiff and the criminal prosecution, accusing 

Plaintiff of criminal conduct. 

73. For nearly two years, Brian Towne’s life was hell. He faced criminal charges 

that were not supported by probable cause for the sole reason of having the audacity 

of running for elected office and opposing Karen Donnelly in an election. He had to 

retain attorneys to defend him in both the criminal prosecution and the appeals. And 

his reputation has been utterly destroyed due to the amount of press given to 

Defendants’ political prosecution of him. 

74. Defendants’ conduct is something one would expect in a totalitarian 

government where political opponents are routinely persecuted and executed; it is not 

expected here. 
13

75. Prosecutors are under an ethical obligation to use their authority to seek 

justice and not to settle personal or political scores. It is apparent that the Defendants 

violated that sacred oath. 

76. The conduct of these Defendants in abusing their office and the public trust is 

appalling and shocks the conscience. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit not only to seek 

redress for the violation of his civil rights but to deter similar misconduct. 

CLAIMS 

Count One 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Violation of the First Amendment 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter 

77. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

78. In running for LaSalle County State’s Attorney, Plaintiff engaged in an activity 

protected by the First Amendment.

79. Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, 

and Baxter subjected Plaintiff to criminal prosecution for charges that were not 

supported by probable cause.

80. Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution by these Defendants was motivated by 

Plaintiff’s First Amendment activity, i.e. running for LaSalle County State’s Attorney

in the 2016 election.

81. In other word, Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution was based on Plaintiff exercising 

his right to free speech, specifically Plaintiff’s campaign for LaSalle County State’s 

Attorney.
14

82. The criminal prosecution of a political opponent is, without a doubt, likely to 

deter First Amendment activity.

83. By subjecting Plaintiff to criminal prosecution for which there was no probable 

cause – which was motivated by Plaintiff’s engaging in First Amendment activity –

Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and Baxter violated 

Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment.

84. As a result of the violation of his First Amendment rights through this 

prosecution, Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages.

85. The retaliatory prosecution did not end until the criminal charges against 

Plaintiff were dismissed. Until that point, Plaintiff continued to suffer injuries of a 

personal and pecuniary nature.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Brian Towne prays for judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter on this claim and for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief that is just and appropriate.

Count Two 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Violation of the Fourth Amendment 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter 

86. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

87. Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, 

and Baxter secured numerous criminal indictments against Plaintiff that were not 
15

supported by probable cause. This was done by presenting false and misleading 

information the Grand Jury.

88. Plaintiff was detained pursuant to those indictment. Plaintiff was ultimately 

released on bond but was subjected to conditions that restricted his liberty in a way 

that would not have existed absent the criminal indictments secured by Defendants 

Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, and Gualandri.

89. Plaintiff was not released from this bond until his charges were dismissed.

90. By subjecting Plaintiff to criminal prosecution for which there was no probable 

cause, Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, and Gualandri violated 

Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.

91. As a result of the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, Plaintiff was 

injured.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Brian Towne prays for judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter on this claim and for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief that is just and appropriate.

Count Three 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter 

92. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.
16

93. Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, 

and Baxter conspired to prosecute Plaintiff for his political opposition against Karen 

Donnelly. They completed fabricated reports, intimidated witnesses, and concealed 

exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff. Defendants’ conduct was intentional, willful and 

wanton, and malicious.

94. Defendants’ misconduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s facing criminal 

charges for which there were no probable cause. But for this misconduct, Plaintiff 

would not have been subjected to criminal prosecution and the associated deprivation 

of liberty.

95. Defendants’ misconduct violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Due 

Process rights.

96. As a result of the violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, Plaintiff was 

injured.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Brian Towne prays for judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter on this claim and for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief that is just and appropriate.

Count Four 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Failure to Intervene 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter 

97. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.
17

98. Plaintiff was investigated, detained, and prosecuted in violation of his rights 

under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

99. Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, 

and Baxter knew that such conduct was in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights 

but did nothing to intervene to prevent the harm.

100. Simply put, Defendants failed to intervene to prevent the misconduct of others

despite having the opportunity to do so.

101. As a result of Defendants’ failure to act, Plaintiff was injured.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Brian Towne prays for judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter on this claim and for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief that is just and appropriate.

Count Five 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 

Conspiracy 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter 

102. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

103. Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, 

and Baxter entered into an agreement to falsely arrest and prosecute Plaintiff 

without probable cause.

104. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Defendants committed overt acts, including 

falsifying and concealing material evidence and coercing witnesses.
18

105. As a result of the conspiracy, Plaintiff was injured.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Brian Towne prays for judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, and 

Baxter on this claim and for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and any additional relief that is just and appropriate.

Count Six 

Illinois law 

Malicious Prosecution 

Defendants Donnelly, County of LaSalle, and City of Ottawa 

106. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

107. Plaintiff was subjected to criminal prosecution based on charges that were not 

supported by probable cause.

108. This criminal prosecution was initiated and continued by Defendant Karen 

Donnelly, assistant state’s attorneys employed by the County of LaSalle, and law 

enforcement officers employed by the City of Ottawa. In addition, R-I-D Baxter was 

employed by one of the municipalities and acted within the scope of his employment.

109. Defendant Donnelly and the County and City employees acted with malice.

Defendant Donnelly, in particular, acted due to her personal animosity towards 

Plaintiff based on his prior criminal prosecution of Cody Donnelly, his decision not to 

hire Defendant as an entry level assistant state’s attorney, and his opposition to 

Defendant in the 2016 election.

110. The charges were dismissed in Plaintiff’s favor.
19

111. The County and City employees acted within the scope of their employment 

during the relevant time. As a result, the County of LaSalle and the City of Ottawa 

are liable under the legal theory of Respondeat Superior.

112. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of being subjected to criminal 

prosecution to charges for which there were no probable cause.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Brian Towne prays for judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants Donnelly, the County of LaSalle, and the City of Ottawa on this claim 

and for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and any additional 

relief that is just and appropriate.

Count Seven 

Illinois law 

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

Defendants Donnelly, County of LaSalle, and City of Ottawa 

113. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

114. Plaintiff was subjected to criminal prosecution based on charges that were not 

supported by probable cause. This prosecution was due to Plaintiff having opposed 

Defendant Karen Donnelly in the 2016 election for LaSalle County State’s Attorney.

115. This criminal prosecution was initiated and continued by Defendant Karen 

Donnelly, assistant state’s attorneys employed by the County of LaSalle, and law 

enforcement officers employed by the City of Ottawa.

116. The criminal prosecution, media statements, and overall conduct of Defendant 

Donnelly, the County employees, and the City employees were done with an intention

to cause emotional distress to Plaintiff.
20

117. The conduct of these Defendants exceeded the bounds of civilized society and 

was extreme and outrageous. These Defendants abused their offices and violated the 

public’s trust by commencing and continuing a criminal prosecution that was not 

based on probable cause but was motivated by personal and political animus. 

118. The County and City employees acted within the scope of their employment 

during the relevant time. As a result, the County of LaSalle and the City of Ottawa 

are liable under the legal theory of Respondeat Superior.

119. Plaintiff suffered emotional distress from the ongoing criminal prosecution, 

which did not end until the charges were dismissed in August 2019.

120. Plaintiff continues to suffer harm to his emotional well-being and reputation 

to this day due to the media attention surrounding the misconduct taken by 

Defendants in subjecting Plaintiff to this criminal prosecution.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Brian Towne prays for judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants Donnelly, the County of LaSalle, and the City of Ottawa on this claim 

and for an award of compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and any additional 

relief that is just and appropriate.

Count Eight 

Illinois law 

Conspiracy 

Defendants Donnelly, County of LaSalle, and City of Ottawa 

121. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.
21

122. Defendants Donnelly, Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, Adams, Gualandri, Scott, 

and Baxter entered into an agreement to falsely arrest and prosecute Plaintiff 

without probable cause.

123. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Defendants committed overt acts, including 

falsifying and concealing material evidence and coercing witnesses.

124. As a result of the conspiracy, Plaintiff was injured.

125. The County and City employees acted within the scope of their employment 

during the relevant time. As a result, the County of LaSalle and the City of Ottawa 

are liable under the legal theory of Respondeat Superior.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Brian Towne prays for judgment in his favor and against 

Defendants Donnelly, the County of LaSalle, and the City of Ottawa on this claim 

and for an award of compensatory damages, costs, and any additional relief that is 

just and appropriate.

Count Nine 

Illinois law 

Indemnification 

Defendants County of LaSalle and City of Ottawa 

126. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth 

herein.

127. During the relevant time, Defendants Mueller, Vescogni, Kidder, and Adams

were employed as assistant state’s attorneys and Defendant Baxter was employed as 

an investigator with the LaSalle County State’s Attorney’s Office and acted within 

the scope of their employment.
22

128. Under 745 ILCS 10/9-102, County of LaSalle is required to indemnify all 

County employees for any judgment against them for acts or omissions done within 

the scope of their employment.

129. During the relevant time, Defendants Gualandri and Scott were employed as 

a law enforcement officer with the City of Ottawa police department and acted within 

the scope of his employment.

130. Under 745 ILCS 10/9-102, City of Ottawa is required to indemnify all City 

employees for any judgment against them for acts or omissions done within the scope 

of their employment.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Brian Towne prays for judgment in his favor and that County of 

LaSalle be required to indemnify any County employee found liable in this matter 

and pay any award of compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Plaintiff 

Brian Towne further prays for judgment in his favor and that City of Ottawa be 

required to indemnify any City employees found liable in this matter and pay any 

award of compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Jury Demand 

Plaintiff Brian Towne demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Shawn W. Barnett

Attorney No. 6312312

sbarnett@halemonico.com

(312) 870-6905
23

Hale & Monico, LLC

53 West Jackson, Suite 337

Chicago, IL 60604

HaleMonico.com
24

Certificate of Service 

 

I, the undersigned attorney, certify that I filed the foregoing using the Court’s 

electronic filing system. As a result, electronic copies of the filed document were 

served upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Shawn W. Barnett