IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NOTICE OF REMOVAL

LCS Community Employment LLC (“LCE”), by its attorneys Jody Kahn Mason, Jason A. 

Selvey, and Jonathan B. Cifonelli of Jackson Lewis P.C., and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 

and 1446, hereby removes this action from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County 

Department, Chancery Division to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division. In support thereof, LCE states as follows:

Procedural History and Plaintiff’s Allegations

1. On June 9, 2020, Plaintiffs Dominique Stinson and Octavia Williams (“Plaintiffs”) 

commenced this action by filing a putative Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) against

Defendants in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division

alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et 

seq. The lawsuit is captioned Dominique Stinson and Octavia Williams v. LCS Community 

DOMINIQUE STINSON and 

OCTAVIA WILLIAMS, individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

)

)

)

)

 

Plaintiffs,

)

)

Case No.: 

)

 v. )

)

LCS COMMUNITY

EMPLOYMENT, LLC, LCS 

MOKENA LLC d/b/a 

CLARENDALE OF MOKENA, LLC 

and ALGONQUIN OPERATIONS, 

LLC d/b/a CLARENDALE OF 

ALGONQUIN,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:1
2

Employment LLC, LCS Mokena LLC d/b/a Clarendale of Mokena, and Algonquin Operations, 

LLC d/b/a Clarendale of Algonquin, and numbered 2020 CH 04505 (the “State Court Action”). A 

copy of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (“Compl.”) is attached hereto in Exhibit A. 

2. Plaintiffs are former employees of LCE who worked at either the Clarendale of 

Mokena, which Plaintiffs allege is operated by LCS Mokena LLC (“LCS Mokena”), or the 

Clarendale of Algonquin, which Plaintiffs allege is operated by Defendant Algonquin Operations, 

LLC (“Algonquin Operations”). (Ex. A, Compl., ¶¶ 1-5.) The Complaint alleges that Defendants 

required Plaintiffs to “use a biometric time clock system to record their time worked,” and that 

“Defendants required Plaintiffs and other employees to scan their hands in Defendants’ biometric 

time clock each time they started and finished working each shift.” (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) Plaintiffs allege 

that “Defendants collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique biometric hand geometry scan 

identifiers, or information derived from those identifiers, of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated 

without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.” (Id. ¶ 14.)

3. In so doing, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants collected, captured, stored and/or 

otherwise obtained Plaintiffs’ “hand geometry scans or personal identifying information derived 

from Plaintiffs’ hand geometry scans” (id. ¶ 32) without (i) informing them in writing that 

Defendants were doing so; (2) informing them in writing of the purpose and the length of term for 

which their biometric identifiers or biometric information were being collected, stored and used;

(3) receiving written releases executed by Plaintiff and the putative class members; and (4) creating 

and following a written, publicly available policy establishing a retention schedule and destruction 

guidelines for their alleged possession of biometric identifiers and information, purportedly in 

violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(a) and (b). (Ex. A, Compl. ¶¶ 50-52, 58.) Plaintiffs also claim that 

Defendants violated another section of the BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/15(d), by allegedly disclosing and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:2
3

disseminating Plaintiffs’ and the putative class members’ hand geometry scans and personal 

identifying information without obtaining their consent. (Id. ¶ 65.)

4. For themselves and each member of the putative class, Plaintiffs seek: (1)

“liquidated or actual monetary damages, whichever is higher, to Plaintiffs and each member of the 

Class for each violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act as provided by 740 ILCS 

14/20(1)-(2)”; (2) injunctive relief, and (3) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. (Ex. A, Compl., 

prayers for relief for Counts I-III).

5. Under 740 ILCS 14/20(1)-(2), Plaintiffs may recover “(1) against a private entity

that negligently violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual damages,

whichever is greater; [or] (2) against a private entity that intentionally or recklessly violates a

provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater . . . .”

6. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as: “a class of Defendants’ workers who 

scanned their hands in Defendants’ biometric time clock system in Illinois between June 9, 2015 

and the present without first executing a written release.” (Ex. A, Compl. ¶ 34.) Defendants deny

that five years is the appropriate statute of limitations for claims asserted under the BIPA. 

However, Defendants accept Plaintiffs’ assertion for purposes of this Notice of Removal. 

Timeliness of Removal

7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), if the grounds for removal are apparent on the 

face of the initial pleading, “[t]he notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed 

within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the 

initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or 

within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then 

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:3
4

been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter.” 

As explained below, the grounds for removal here are apparent on the face of the Complaint. 

8. On July 6, 2020, each Defendant was served with the Complaint and Summons. 

None of the Defendants has filed an answer or any other pleading responsive to the Complaint, 

nor has any of the Defendants appeared or made any arguments before the State Court. 

9. LCE files this Notice of Removal on August 5, 2020, 30 days after being served 

with the Complaint. As such, this Notice of Removal is timely. 

10. Defendants LCS Mokena and Algonquin Operations consent to LCE’s removal of 

the State Court Action to this Court.1

Basis for Removal

11. Removal is proper here under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. 

§1332(d). Under CAFA, United States District Courts have original jurisdiction over any class 

action: (i) involving a class of 100 or more members; (ii) where at least one member of the class 

is a citizen of a state different from any defendant; and (iii) in which the matter in controversy 

exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). These 

prerequisites are satisfied here.

12. First, this matter is a covered “class action.” Pursuant to CAFA, “the term ‘class 

action’ means any civil action filed under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or similar 

State statute or rule of judicial procedure authorizing an action to be brought by 1 or more 

representative persons as a class action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(1)(B). Here, Plaintiffs purport to 

bring this lawsuit on behalf of a class of individuals and seek to represent them and their interests 

in this action as provided for under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Illinois Code of 

 

1 The undersigned counsel also represent LCS Mokena and Algonquin Operations in this action. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:4
5

Civil Procedure provisions for class actions, 735 ILCS 5/2-801, et seq. (Ex. A, Compl., ¶¶ 38-45,

Prayers for Relief.) 

13. Second, this class action involves a proposed class of more than 100 members. In 

the five years preceding the filing of Plaintiffs’ Complaint on June 9, 2020 through the present,

more than 500 current and former LCE employees have used the alleged hand-scanning biometric 

timekeeping systems at the Clarendale of Mokena and Clarendale of Algonquin communities 

under conditions Plaintiffs allege violate the BIPA.

2

(Declaration of Monica Friedman, attached 

hereto as Exhibit B, ¶ 6.)

14. Third, the minimal diversity requirement is met. As Plaintiffs have asserted, they 

are citizens of the State of Illinois. (Ex. A, Compl., ¶¶ 18-19.) 

15. LCE is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Iowa

and its principal place of business in the State of Iowa. (Ex. B, Declaration of Monica Friedman, 

¶ 5; see also Ex. A, Compl., ¶ 20.)

16. As such, at least one class member is a citizen of a different state than at least one 

of the Defendants, and this case meets the minimal diversity requirement of CAFA. 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(d)(2)(A) (minimal diversity requires that “any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of 

a State different from any defendant”). 

17. Fourth, the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $5 million, exclusive of 

interest and costs. Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and “a class of Defendants’ 

workers who scanned their hands in Defendants’ biometric time clock system in Illinois between 

June 9, 2015 and the present without first executing a written release.” (Id. ¶34.) As defined, the 

 

2 Defendants deny that they violated the BIPA, deny that a class could be properly certified and deny

that Plaintiffs or the putative class are entitled to any relief whatsoever.

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:5
6

putative class would include more than 500 individuals.3 (Ex. B, Declaration of Monica Friedman, 

¶ 6).

18. On behalf of themselves and the putative class, Plaintiffs seek to recover statutory 

liquidated damages of $5,000 for each reckless or willful violation of the BIPA and $1,000 for 

each negligent violation. (Ex. A, Compl., Prayer for Relief for Counts I-III, 740 ILCS 14/20(1)-

(2).) Plaintiffs do not state what they contend constitutes “each violation” of the BIPA. However, 

they bring this action on behalf of a putative class of individuals who (a) are or were employed by 

LCE, and (b) work at or worked at a community allegedly operated by one of the other two 

Defendants, and they further contend that each of them violated the BIPA. As such, it is apparent 

in Plaintiffs’ Complaint that they seek a $5,000 recovery on behalf of each putative class member

from LCE and another $5,000 recovery from at least one of LCS Mokena and Algonquin 

Operations. Under these circumstances, the amount in controversy would necessarily exceed

$5,000,000 and exceed the threshold required to support removal under CAFA.

4

 

Venue and Procedural Steps

19. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is the 

appropriate venue for removal of the State Court Action. Under 28 U.S.C. §1441, a civil action 

brought in any state court in which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction 

is to be removed to the district court for the district and division embracing the place where the 

state court action is pending. The State Court Action was filed in Cook County, Illinois, which is 

located in this judicial district and division.

 

3 Defendants once more nevertheless deny that they violated the BIPA, deny that a class could be 

properly certified and deny that Plaintiffs and the putative class are entitled to any of the relief they seek. 

4 To be clear, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs and the putative class are entitled to $5,000 or $1,000 

in statutory damages from any of the Defendants and further deny that Plaintiffs or the putative class could 

obtain multiple recoveries for the same purported BIPA violation in any event. LCE accepts Plaintiffs’

apparent position solely for purposes of this Notice of Removal. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:6
7

20. As required by 28 U.S.C. §1446(a), the Complaint, Summons and any other 

“process, pleadings, and orders” served to date on Defendants, are attached as group Exhibit A. 

21. As required by 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), written notice of this Notice of Removal will 

be sent promptly to Plaintiffs’ counsel by email and U.S. Mail, and promptly filed with the Clerk 

of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division. 

22. By filing this Notice of Removal, LCE does not waive any defenses to the claims 

Plaintiffs assert on behalf of themselves and the putative class, including that Plaintiffs have not 

pleaded a claim upon which relief can be granted and that class certification is inappropriate.

WHEREFORE, Defendant LCS Community Employment LLC hereby removes case 

number 2020 CH 04505 pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County 

Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division. 

Dated: August 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

LCS COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT LLC

By: s/ Jason A. Selvey

 One of Its Attorneys

Jody Kahn Mason

Jason A. Selvey

Jonathan B. Cifonelli

Jackson Lewis P.C.

150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illlinois 60601

Tel.: 312.787.4949

Jody.Mason@jacksonlewis.com

Jason.Selvey@jacksonlewis.com

Jonathan.Cifonelli@jacksonlewis.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:7
8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jason A. Selvey, an attorney, certify that on August 5, 2020, I caused a true and correct 

copy of the attached Notice of Removal to be served on the following counsel of record for 

Plaintiffs by email at the following addresses: 

Douglas M. Werman

Zachary C. Flowerree

Werman Salas P.C.

77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402

Chicago, Illinois 60602

dwerman@flsalaw.com

zflowerree@flsalaw.com

David Fish

Kimberly Hilton

John Kunze

Mara Baltabols

The Fish Law Firm, P.C. 

200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123

Naperville, Illinois 60563

dfish@fishlawfirm.com

khilton@fishlawfirm.com

kunze@fishlawfirm.com

mara@fishlawfirm.com

s/ Jason A. Selvey

4850-2635-4630, v. 5

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:8
EXHIBIT A

4815-9901-1344, v. 1

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:9
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:10
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:11
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:12
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:13
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:14
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:15
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:16
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:17
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:18
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:19
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:20
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 21 of 37 PageID #:21
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 22 of 37 PageID #:22
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 23 of 37 PageID #:23
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 24 of 37 PageID #:24
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 25 of 37 PageID #:25
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 26 of 37 PageID #:26
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 27 of 37 PageID #:27
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 28 of 37 PageID #:28
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 29 of 37 PageID #:29
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 30 of 37 PageID #:30
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 31 of 37 PageID #:31
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 32 of 37 PageID #:32
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 33 of 37 PageID #:33
Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 34 of 37 PageID #:34
EXHIBIT B

4815-9901-1344, v. 1

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 35 of 37 PageID #:35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DECLARATION OF MONICA FRIEDMAN

I, Monica Friedman, state and affirm as follows based on my personal knowledge:

1. My name is Monica Friedman. I am over the age of 18 years and otherwise competent 

to give testimony. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this Declaration.

2. I hold the office of Senior Vice President for LCS Community Employment LLC. I am 

authorized to submit this Declaration on behalf of LCS Community Employment LLC (“LCE”).

3. As part of my job, I am familiar with and have access to personnel information regarding 

LCE and its current and former employees, including the type of timekeeping system such employees 

used. 

4. In my position, I am also familiar with the corporate structure of LCE.

5. LCE is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Iowa

with its principal place of business in the State of Iowa. 

DOMINIQUE STINSON and OCTAVIA 

WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

)

)

)

)

 

Plaintiff,

)

)

Case No.: 

)

 v. )

)

LCS COMMUNITY

EMPLOYMENT, LLC, LCS MOKENA 

LLC d/b/a CLARENDALE OF 

MOKENA, LLC and ALGONQUIN 

OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a 

CLARENDALE OF ALGONQUIN,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

DocuSign Envelope ID: DB6FFF2C-F2D5-4E99-8F86-D2A19399CB2D Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 36 of 37 PageID #:36
2

6. From June 9, 2015 through the present, more than 500 current and former LCE 

employees have used the alleged hand-scanning biometric timekeeping systems at the Clarendale 

of Mokena and Clarendale of Algonquin communities under conditions Plaintiffs allege violate the 

Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

THE DECLARANT STATES NOTHING FURTHER.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 

of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on _____________.

__________________________

4817-6319-2518, v. 1

DocuSign Envelope ID: DB6FFF2C-F2D5-4E99-8F86-D2A19399CB2D

8/5/2020 | 3:07 PM CDT

Case: 1:20-cv-04603 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 37 of 37 PageID #:37