Exhibit C

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 1 of 30 PageID #:114
1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

MICHAEL MARZETTE, individually, and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

SP PLUS CORPORATION, a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Michael Marzette (“Marzette” or “Plaintiff”) brings this Class Action Complaint 

and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant SP Plus Corporation (“SP Plus” or “Defendant”) 

for violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.

Plaintiff, for his Complaint, alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to himself and his

own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including 

investigation conducted by his attorneys.

INTRODUCTION

1. SP Plus is a corporation that claims to facilitate the efficient movement of people, 

vehicles and personal belongings with the goal of enhancing the consumer experience while 

improving bottom line results for its clients.1 SP Plus provides parking facility management 

1

https://www.spplus.com

FILED

4/3/2020 1:36 PM

DOROTHY BROWN

CIRCUIT CLERK

COOK COUNTY, IL

2020CH03691

9016515

Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: 8/3/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM

Courtroom Number: 2502

Location: District 1 Court

 Cook County, IL FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

12-Person Jury

2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 2 of 30 PageID #:115
2

services in the United States and Canada. Additionally, the Company provides management 

services at multi-level and surface parking facilities in the urban and airport parking markets.2

2. SP Plus employs over ten-thousand full-time employees. Plaintiff brings this class 

action to put an end to SP Plus’s invasions of privacy – specifically its collection, storage, and 

subsequent use of its employees’ fingerprint data without consent as required by BIPA.

3. According to BIPA, “biometric information” is any information, regardless of 

how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual’s biometric identifier 

used to identify an individual. “Biometric identifier” is defined as a retina or iris scan, 

fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.

4. Biometric identification has become a common place in financial services, work 

environments, and everyday life such as unlocking a phone with a fingerprint or facial scan. 

With the rise of biometric scanning for personal information and data, Illinois enacted BIPA to 

protect consumers from companies using and abusing their personal biometric data. 

5. Due to the rise of biometric-facilitated transactions in Illinois, the State enacted 

BIPA. According to BIPA, “biometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access 

finances or other sensitive information. For example, social security numbers, when 

compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; 

therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identify 

theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions.” 740 ILCS 14/5(c).

6. To protect consumer and employee privacy rights in the face of increased 

biometric-facilitated transactions, BIPA created a set of requirements that companies must 

2

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/SP:US

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 3 of 30 PageID #:116
3

adhere to prior to obtaining, storing, or using the biometric data in anyway. These requirements 

ban any use of biometric data unless the company first: (1) informs that person in writing that 

biometric information will be collected or stored; (2) informs that person in writing of the 

specific purpose and length of term for which such biometric information is being collected, 

stored and used; and (3) receives a written release from the person for the collection of his or her 

biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).

7. Defendant used fingerprint activated timeclocks for employees to clock in and out 

of work. Plaintiff and Defendant’s other employees were required to sign in and out using this 

fingerprint system. Plaintiff further alleges, that at no time during his employment he had ever 

authorized the collection and storage of his fingerprints for company use. Furthermore, 

Defendant does not provide its employees with a publicly available retention schedule or 

guidelines for permanently destroying their biometric information as expressly required by 

BIPA. 740 ILCS 14/15, et seq.

8. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of proposed class in order to 

stop Defendant SP Plus’s repeated violations of BIPA and to recover statutory damages for the 

unauthorized collection, storage, and use of their biometric information in violation of the BIPA.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Michael Marzette is a resident of Bellwood, Cook County, Illinois.

10. Defendant SP Plus is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, Cook 

County, Illinois. Defendant conducts business throughout this District.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 4 of 30 PageID #:117
4

11. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(1) 

because Defendant does and is registered to do business in this state and Plaintiff is a resident of 

Illinois.

12. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant is headquartered in and does 

business throughout Cook County, Illinois.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

Biometric Information and the Illinois BIPA

13. As previously mentioned, a “biometric identifier” is any biological, personal 

feature that includes fingerprints, iris scans, DNA, facial features and voice, as well as others.3

14. Under BIPA consumers’ and citizens’ privacy in regard to biometric information 

deserves enhanced protections in the face of certain technological advances. BIPA recognizes 

that “biometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finance or other 

sensitive information.” 740 ILCS 14/5(c). “For example, social security numbers, when 

compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; 

therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity 

theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transaction.” Id.

15. To protect consumer privacy, BIPA that states:

No private entity may collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise 

obtain a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifier or biometric information, unless it 

first:

3 BIPA defines “biometric information” as “any information, regardless of how it is captured, 

converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to identify an 

individual. “Biometric identifier” means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of 

hand or face geometry. 740 ILCS 14/10. For the purposes of ease, biometric “information” and 

“identifier” may be used interchangeably for the remainder

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 5 of 30 PageID #:118
5

(1) informs the subject of the subject’s legally authorized representative in writing that 

a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored;

(2) informs the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative in writing of 

the specific purpose and length of term for which biometric identifier or biometric 

information is being collected, stored, and used; and

(3) receives a written release executed by the subject of the biometric identifier or 

biometric information or the subject’s legal authorized representative.

740 ILCS 14/15(b).

16. BIPA also requires companies adopt a retention schedule for biometric 

information, stating:

A private entity in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must 

develop a written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention 

schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and 

biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such 

identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the individual’s 

last interaction with the private entity, whichever occurs first.

740 ILCS 14/15(a)

17. Defendant has engaged and continues to engage in the practice of collecting, 

storing, and using its employees’ biometric information without any informed written consent in 

violation of all three requirements of Section 15(b). Additionally, in violation of Section 15(a), 

SP Plus has failed to provide a publicly available written policy regarding its schedule and 

guidelines for retention and permanent destruction of its users’ biometric information.

SP Plus Collects and Stores Current and Former Employees’Biometric Information 

Without Informed Consent

18. SP Plus employs a large workforce that includes over 14,700 full-time employees 

and 9,200 part-time employees.

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 6 of 30 PageID #:119
6

19. Defendant tracks its employees hours to ensure that it’s paying employees who 

are signing in and out themselves (and not having co-workers clock them in and out). Using 

technology that relies on and captures biometric data helps to ensure honesty when clocking-in 

and out of the business. 

20. While this is an effective way to save money for the corporation and shareholders, 

when done incorrectly it adversely effects the Plaintiff and alleged Class. Reckless storage of 

biometric data can result in the biometric information being stolen and used against the 

employees. 

21. In violation of BIPA, however, Defendant collects, stores, and uses its employees’ 

biometric information without any express written consent and without providing a public 

retention schedule.

22. Both of these actions violate BIPA. In violation of the first requirement under 

Section 15(b) of BIPA, SP Plus never expressly informed or informs its employees that it would 

collect, store, or use their biometric fingerprint information. 

23. Second, and again in violation of Section 15(b) of BIPA, SP Plus never informed 

its employees of the specified purpose or length for which their fingerprints would be collected, 

stored, and used. The only knowledge employees were given was the installation of the biometric 

fingerprint timeclock that they were instructed to use. 

24. Finally, in another violation of Section 15(b) of BIPA, SP Plus never received any 

written release from its members before it began to collect, store, and use their biometric 

information. Employees of SP Plus were merely shown the biometric fingerprinting timeclock 

and told to use it to clock-in and out. Employees were never told of the potential ramifications of 

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 7 of 30 PageID #:120
7

the fingerprinting timeclock, including, how the data would be stored, how long it would be 

stored, and if they were required to use the timeclock. By all accounts, the use of the biometric 

timeclock was mandatory for employees, despite its collection of extremely valuable and 

personal information.

25. Defendant SP Plus’s intentional, reckless, or negligent failure to provide 

employees with: (i) the BIPA-required written notice that their biometric information would be 

collected, stored, and used; (ii) information regarding the specific time and purpose for which 

such biometric information would be stored; and (iii) to obtain its employee’s express written 

release for the collection, storage, and use of their biometric information, all violated BIPA.

SP Plus Fails to Provide a Publicly Available Written Policy Regarding the Retention and 

Destruction of Biometric Information

26. Defendant also violated Section 15(a) of BIPA’s requirement to “develop a 

written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for 

permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information.” 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF MICHAEL MARZETTE

27. Plaintiff Michael Marzette resides in Bellwood, Cook County, Illinois.

28. Mr. Marzette began employment with Defendant SP Plus Corporation on or 

around August 8, 2002. Mr. Marzette was given the employee number 166018 by Defendant and 

worked at Midway Airport in Chicago, Illinois. He remained employed with Defendant until 

October 29, 2017.

29. Mr. Marzette was employed as a hiker or customer service worker during his first 

two years with Defendant. For his remaining years, Mr. Marzette worked as a cashier and 

customer service employee.

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 8 of 30 PageID #:121
8

30. According to Mr. Marzette, Defendant began using the biometric fingerprint 

timeclock system around the end of 2015. At no point during the remainder of Mr. Marzette’s 

employment with Defendant did Defendant ever provide any of the statutorily-required 

authorizations or disclosures to Plaintiff, nor did Defendant ever obtain consent under BIPA to 

collect such information. 

31. Plaintiff’s only knowledge of the fingerprinting timeclock was the installation and 

required use to continue his employment with Defendant.

32. Plaintiff never provided any form of informed consent, in writing or otherwise, to 

Defendant allowing Defendant’s collection, storage, and usage of his biometric information in 

the form of fingerprints.

33. Finally, Plaintiff was never made aware of, and still cannot find, any publicly 

available retention schedule provided by Defendant for the retention and deletion of employees’ 

biometric data.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s BIPA Claims Arising From Collected, 

Stored, Captured, Or Used Biometric Data By Defendant SP Plus Corporation

34. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following proposed class (the “Class”):

Stored Biometric Data Class: All persons who, while residing in Illinois and 

employed by SP Plus Corporation, had their fingerprints collected, captured, stored, 

or otherwise used by SP Plus Corporation.

35. Subject to additional information gathered through further investigation and 

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or 

amended complaint.

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 9 of 30 PageID #:122
9

36. The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or 

Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its 

subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents 

have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) 

Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion 

from the Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons; 

and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated and/or 

released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following appropriate 

discovery.

37. Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and not available to Plaintiff 

at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable due to the sheer size of 

Defendant’s corporation and number of employees that may have been subjected to the 

collection of their biometric data. On information and belief, Defendant collected employee’s 

biometric information in the form of fingerprints on its fingerprinting timeclock. Members of the 

Class can be identified through Defendant’s employment records, and additional Members can 

be identified through discovering the extent that Defendant uses biometric scanners and 

timeclocks at each of their several locations throughout Illinois.

38. Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact 

common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any 

questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class 

include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

(a) whether Defendant collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained 

biometric identifiers or biometric information from Plaintiff and the Class;

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 10 of 30 PageID #:123
10

(b) whether Defendant informed Plaintiff and the Class before collecting, using, 

and storing their biometric identifiers or biometric information as required by 

Section 15(b) of the BIPA;

(c) whether Defendant informed Plaintiff and the Class of the specific purpose 

and the length for which a biometric identifier or biometric information is 

being collected, stored, and used as required by Section 15(b) of the BIPA;

(d) whether Defendant obtained a written release, as defined by the BIPA, from 

the Plaintiff and the Class to collect, store, and use their biometric identifiers 

or biometric information;

(e) whether Defendant used biometric identifiers to identify Plaintiff and the 

Class;

(f) whether Defendant provided a publicly available written policy establishing a 

retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric 

identifiers and biometrics information, as required by Section 15(a) of the 

BIPA;

(g) whether Defendant’s violations of BIPA were committed intentionally, 

recklessly, or negligently;

(h) whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to statutory damages under the 

BIPA and the correct measure for those damages; and

(i) whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief.

39. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the 

Class in that defendant collected, stored and used his biometric information without informed 

consent in the exact same manner as every other Class member.

40. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class 

actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no 

defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting 

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 11 of 30 PageID #:124
11

this action on behalf of the members of the Class, and have the financial resources to do so. 

Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interest adverse to the Class.

41. Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because 

Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class and as a 

whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards 

of conduct toward the members of the Class and making final class-wide injunctive relief 

appropriate. Defendant’s business practices apply to and affect the members of the Class 

uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with 

respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff. Additionally, the 

damages suffered by individual members of the Class will likely be small relative to the burden 

and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s 

actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the members of the Class to obtain effective 

relief from Defendant’s misconduct on an individual basis. A class action provides the benefits 

of single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. 

Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions will be 

ensured.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 40 ILCS 14/15(b)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 

aforementioned paragraphs of this Complaint and incorporates them by reference herein.

43. Section 15(b) of BIPA states that a private entity may not, among other things,

collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or 

a consumer’s biometric identifiers or biometric information, unless it first:

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 12 of 30 PageID #:125
12

(1) informs the subject... in writing that a biometric identifier or 

biometric information is being collected or stored;

(2) informs the subject... in writing of the specific purpose and length 

of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric information is being 

collected, stored, and used; and 

(3) receives a written release executed by the subject of the biometric 

identifier or biometric information...

740 ILCS 14/15(b).

44. SP Plus Corporation is a private entity under BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.

45. Plaintiff and the Class members are individuals under BIPA. See id.

46. SP Plus Corporation collected, captured, and obtained Plaintiff’s and the Class 

members’ biometric identifiers through its biometric fingerprinting timeclocks.

47. Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ fingerprints collected, captured, and obtained 

by Defendant are by definition “biometric information” as per BIPA because Defendant used 

those biometric identifiers to identify Plaintiff and Class members for the purposes of clocking in 

and out as employees of Defendant. See id.

48. Defendant collected, captured, obtained, used, and stored Plaintiff’s and the Class 

members’ biometric information and identifiers without first obtaining the written release 

required by Section 15(b) of BIPA.

49. As alleged and shown above, Defendant did not inform Plaintiff or the Class 

members in writing that their biometric identifiers or information were being collected, stored, 

and used as required by Section 15(b) of BIPA.

50. As alleged and shown above, Defendant did not inform Plaintiff or the Class 

members in writing of the specific purpose and length for which their fingerprints or other 

information was being collected, stored, and used, as required by Section 15(b) of BIPA.

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 13 of 30 PageID #:126
13

51. Defendant is liable for violations under BIPA by collecting, capturing, obtaining, 

storing, and using Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ biometric identifiers and information as 

described herein, SP Plus Corporation violated Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ rights to 

privacy in their biometric identifiers or information as plainly stated within BIPA, 740 ILCS 

14/1 et seq.

52. SP Plus Corporation’s violations of Section 15(b) of BIPA were intentional and 

reckless because SP Plus is headquartered, employs hundreds of employees within Illinois, and is 

actively counseled by attorneys familiar with Illinois law. BIPA has been law in Illinois since 

2008, so SP Plus has had ample opportunity to follow the law as required, and intentionally 

chose not to do so.

53. Alternatively, SP Plus’s violations of Section 15(b) of BIPA were negligent 

because SP Plus failed to meet any applicable standard of care in ensuring that its members were 

informed and consented to the collection, storage, and use of their biometric information and 

biometric identifiers.

54. As a result of defendant’s violations of §15(b) of the BIPA, plaintiff seeks the 

following relief individually and on behalf of the Class: (l) injunctive and equitable relief 

pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(4) requiring Defendant to comply with the BIPA’s requirements for 

the collection, storage, and use of biometric identifiers and biometric information as alleged 

herein; (2) statutory damages of $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation of the BIPA 

pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2), or alternatively, statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent 

violation of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); and (3) reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3). 

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 14 of 30 PageID #:127
14

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act

740 ILCS 14/15(a)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 

preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

56. Section 15(a) of BIPA requires:

A private entity in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must 

develop a written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention 

schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and 

biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such 

identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the individual’s 

last interaction with the private entity, whichever occurs first. 

740 ILCS 14/15(a).

57. Defendant has failed to provide any sort of publicly available retention schedule 

or guidelines for permanently destroying its users’ biometric identifiers and biometric 

information as required by BIPA. Consequently, Defendant has violated Section 15(a) of BIPA. 

As previously stated, this cause of action results in Defendant’s violations of Section 15(a) of the 

BIPA to be seen as intentional or reckless, or in the alternative, negligent.

58. As a result of Defendant’s repeated violations of Section 15(a) of BIPA, plaintiff 

seeks he following relief individually and on behalf of the Class: (l) injunctive and equitable 

relief pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(4) requiring SP Plus to comply with §15(a) of the BIPA’s 

requirement to establish and provide a publicly available retention schedule or guidelines for 

permanently destroying its users’ biometric identifiers and biometric information; (2) statutory 

damages of $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation of §15(a) of the BIPA pursuant to 

740 ILCS 14/20(2), or alternatively, statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation of 

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 15 of 30 PageID #:128
15

§15(a) of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); and (3) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 

expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, prays for the 

following relief:

a) An order certifying the Class as defined above; appointing Plaintiff as the representative 

of the Class; and appointing Woodrow & Peluso, LLC as Class Counsel;

b) An award of statutory damages of $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation of the 

BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2), or alternatively, statutory damages of $1,000 per 

negligent violation of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1) to be paid into a common 

fund for the benefit of Plaintiff and the Class;

c) An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate BIPA, 740 ILCS 

14/1, et seq;

d) An order awarding injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(4) 

requiring SP Plus Corporation to comply with the BIPA by providing a publicly available 

retention schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying its users’ biometric 

identifiers and biometric information and forcing Defendant to stop collecting, storing, 

and using plaintiff’s and the Class members’ biometric identifiers and biometric 

information without first obtaining their informed written consent;

e) Awarding any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a jury trial.

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 16 of 30 PageID #:129
16

Dated: April 3, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL MARZETTE,

/s/ Marc E. McCallister

One of his attorneys

Marc E. McCallister

mem@mccallisterlawgroup.com

Gary D. McCallister

gdm@mccallisterlawgroup.com

McCallister Law Group

200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2150

Chicago, IL 60601

Attorney No.: 59509

(312) 345-0611

Steven L. Woodrow

swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

Woodrow & Peluso, LLC

3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80210

Tel: 720-213-0675

Fax: 303-927-0809

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 17 of 30 PageID #:130
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 1 of 1

Chancery Division Civil Cover Sheet

General Chancery Section ( 2/ / ) CCCH 0623

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

Plaintiff v. Defendant

Case No: 

Only one (1) case type may be checked with this cover sheet.

CHANCERY DIVISION CIVIL COVER SHEET

GENERAL CHANCERY SECTION

0005 

0001 Class Action

0002 

0004 

0007 General Chancery

0010 

0011 Arbitration

0012 Certiorari

0013 

0014 

0015 

0016 

0017 

0018 

0019 

0020 

0021 

0022 

0023 

0024 

0025 

0026 

0050 

Partition

____________________________ Pro Se Only: 

 Atty. No.: ________________ Pro Se 99500

Atty. for: 

Address: 

City: ____________________________ State: ____

________

________________________

FILED

4/3/2020 1:36 PM

DOROTHY BROWN

CIRCUIT CLERK

COOK COUNTY, IL

2020CH03691

9016515

Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: 8/3/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM

Courtroom Number: 2502

Location: District 1 Court

 Cook County, IL FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 18 of 30 PageID #:131
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 1 of 3

2120 - Served 2121 - Served

2220 - Not Served 2221 - Not Served

2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail

2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication

Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 A

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

(Name all parties)

v.

Case No.

SUMMONS ALIAS SUMMONS

To each Defendant:

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of 

which is hereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance and pay the required fee within thirty 

(30) days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service. To file your answer or

appearance you need access to the internet. Please visit www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org to initiate

this process. Kiosks with internet access are available at all Clerk’s Office locations. Please refer to

the last page of this document for location information.

If you fail to do so, a judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief 

requested in the complaint.

To the Officer:

This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, 

with endorsement of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, 

this Summons shall be returned so endorsed. This Summons may not be served later than thirty (30) 

days after its date.

MICHAEL MARZETTE SP PLUS CORPORATION✔

SP Plus Corporation 

c/o Illinois Corporate Service Company 

801 Adlai Stevenson Dr., Springfield, IL 62703 

FILED

4/3/2020 1:36 PM

DOROTHY BROWN

CIRCUIT CLERK

COOK COUNTY, IL

2020CH03691

9016515

Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: 8/3/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM

Courtroom Number: 2502

Location: District 1 Court

 Cook County, IL FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 19 of 30 PageID #:132
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 2 of 3

Witness:

DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of Court

Date of Service: ___________

(To be inserted by officer on copy left with 

Defendant or other person):

E-filing is now mandatory for documents in civil cases with limited exemptions. To e-file, you must first

create an account with an e-filing service provider. Visit http://efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm

to learn more and to select a service provider. If you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http://

www.illinoiscourts.gov/FAQ/gethelp.asp, or talk with your local circuit clerk’s office.

Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 B

Atty. No.: ________________

Atty Name:

Atty. for:

Address:

City: ____________________________

State: ____ Zip: ________

Telephone: ________________________

Primary Email:

59509 Marc E. McCallister Plaintiff/Class Plaintiffs 200 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2150 Chicago IL 60601 (312) 345-0611 mem@mccallisterlawgroup.com FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

4/3/2020 1:36 PM DOROTHY BROWN

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 20 of 30 PageID #:133
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 3 of 3

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington

Chicago, IL 60602

District 2 - Skokie

5600 Old Orchard Rd

Skokie, IL 60077

District 3 - Rolling Meadows

2121 Euclid

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

District 4 - Maywood

1500 Maybrook Ave

Maywood, IL 60153

District 5 - Bridgeview

10220 S 76th Ave

Bridgeview, IL 60455

District 6 - Markham

16501 S Kedzie Pkwy

Markham, IL 60428

Domestic Violence Court

555 W Harrison

Chicago, IL 60607

Juvenile Center Building

2245 W Ogden Ave, Rm 13

Chicago, IL 60602

Criminal Court Building

2650 S California Ave, Rm 526

Chicago, IL 60608

Daley Center Divisions/Departments

Civil Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 601

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Chancery Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 802

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Domestic Relations Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 802

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Civil Appeals

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 801

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Criminal Department

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 1006

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

County Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 1202

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Probate Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 1202

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Law Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 801

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Traffic Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Lower Level

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY OFFICE LOCATIONS

FILED DATE: 4/3/2020 1:36 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 21 of 30 PageID #:134
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 1 of 3

2120 - Served 2121 - Served

2220 - Not Served 2221 - Not Served

2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail

2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication

Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 A

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Michael Marzette, Individually and on behalf of 

all other similarly situated,

Case No. 2020 CH 03691 (Name all parties)

v.

SP Plus Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

SUMMONS ALIAS SUMMONS

To each Defendant:

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of 

which is hereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance and pay the required fee within thirty 

(30) days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service. To file your answer or 

appearance you need access to the internet. Please visit www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org to initiate 

this process. Kiosks with internet access are available at all Clerk’s Office locations. Please refer to 

the last page of this document for location information.

If you fail to do so, a judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief 

requested in the complaint.

To the Officer:

This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, 

with endorsement of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, 

this Summons shall be returned so endorsed. This Summons may not be served later than thirty (30) 

days after its date.

SP Plus Corporation

c/o Illinois Corporate Service Company

801 Adlai Stevenson Dr., Springfield, IL 62703

FILED

7/21/2020 12:25 PM

DOROTHY BROWN

CIRCUIT CLERK

COOK COUNTY, IL

2020CH03691

9833545

Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled

Courtroom Number: No hearing scheduled

Location: No hearing scheduled

 FILED DATE: 7/21/2020 12:25 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 22 of 30 PageID #:135
Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 B

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 2 of 3

E-filing is now mandatory for documents in civil cases with limited exemptions. To e-file, you must first 

create an account with an e-filing service provider. Visit http://efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm

to learn more and to select a service provider. If you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http://

www.illinoiscourts.gov/FAQ/gethelp.asp, or talk with your local circuit clerk’s office.

Atty. No.: 59509 Witness:

Atty Name: Marc E. McCallister

Atty. for: Plaintiffs

DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of Court

Address: 200 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2150

Date of Service:

City: Chicago (To be inserted by officer on copy left with 

Defendant or other person): State: IL Zip: 60601

Telephone: (312) 345-0611

Primary Email: mem@mccallisterlawgroup.com

7/21/2020 12:25 PM DOROTHY BROWN

FILED DATE: 7/21/2020 12:25 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 23 of 30 PageID #:136
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 3 of 3

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY OFFICE LOCATIONS

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington

Chicago, IL 60602

District 2 - Skokie

5600 Old Orchard Rd

Skokie, IL 60077

District 3 - Rolling Meadows

2121 Euclid

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

District 4 - Maywood

1500 Maybrook Ave

Maywood, IL 60153

District 5 - Bridgeview

10220 S 76th Ave

Bridgeview, IL 60455

District 6 - Markham

16501 S Kedzie Pkwy

Markham, IL 60428

Domestic Violence Court

555 W Harrison

Chicago, IL 60607

Juvenile Center Building

2245 W Ogden Ave, Rm 13

Chicago, IL 60602

Criminal Court Building

2650 S California Ave, Rm 526

Chicago, IL 60608

Daley Center Divisions/Departments

Civil Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 601

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Chancery Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 802

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Domestic Relations Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 802

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Civil Appeals

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 801

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Criminal Department

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 1006

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

County Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 1202

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Probate Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 1202

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Law Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 801

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Traffic Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Lower Level

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

FILED DATE: 7/21/2020 12:25 PM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 24 of 30 PageID #:137
Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 25 of 30 PageID #:138
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 1 of 3

2120 - Served 2121 - Served

2220 - Not Served 2221 - Not Served

2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail

2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication

Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 A

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Michael Marzette, Individually and on behalf of 

all other similarly situated,

Case No. 2020 CH 03691 (Name all parties)

v.

SP Plus Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

SUMMONS ALIAS SUMMONS

To each Defendant:

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, a copy of 

which is hereto attached, or otherwise file your appearance and pay the required fee within thirty 

(30) days after service of this Summons, not counting the day of service. To file your answer or 

appearance you need access to the internet. Please visit www.cookcountyclerkofcourt.org to initiate 

this process. Kiosks with internet access are available at all Clerk’s Office locations. Please refer to 

the last page of this document for location information.

If you fail to do so, a judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief 

requested in the complaint.

To the Officer:

This Summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, 

with endorsement of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, 

this Summons shall be returned so endorsed. This Summons may not be served later than thirty (30) 

days after its date.

SP Plus Corporation

c/o Illinois Corporate Service Company

801 Adlai Stevenson Dr., Springfield, IL 62703

FILED

7/21/2020 12:25 PM

DOROTHY BROWN

CIRCUIT CLERK

COOK COUNTY, IL

2020CH03691

9833545

Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: 8/3/2020 9:30 AM - 9:30 AM

Courtroom Number: 2502

Location: District 1 Court

 Cook County, IL FILED DATE: 7/21/2020 12:25 PM 2020CH03691

Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled

Courtroom Number: No hearing scheduled

Location: No hearing scheduled

 

FILED

8/4/2020 11:32 AM

DOROTHY BROWN

CIRCUIT CLERK

COOK COUNTY, IL

2020CH03691

9987118

FILED DATE: 8/4/2020 11:32 AM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 26 of 30 PageID #:139
Summons - Alias Summons (08/01/18) CCG 0001 B

Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 2 of 3

E-filing is now mandatory for documents in civil cases with limited exemptions. To e-file, you must first 

create an account with an e-filing service provider. Visit http://efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm

to learn more and to select a service provider. If you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http://

www.illinoiscourts.gov/FAQ/gethelp.asp, or talk with your local circuit clerk’s office.

Atty. No.: 59509 Witness:

Atty Name: Marc E. McCallister

Atty. for: Plaintiffs

DOROTHY BROWN, Clerk of Court

Address: 200 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2150

Date of Service:

City: Chicago (To be inserted by officer on copy left with 

Defendant or other person): State: IL Zip: 60601

Telephone: (312) 345-0611

Primary Email: mem@mccallisterlawgroup.com

7/21/2020 12:25 PM DOROTHY BROWN

FILED DATE: 7/21/2020 12:25 PM 2020CH03691 FILED DATE: 8/4/2020 11:32 AM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 27 of 30 PageID #:140
Dorothy Brown, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

cookcountyclerkofcourt.org

Page 3 of 3

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY OFFICE LOCATIONS

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington

Chicago, IL 60602

District 2 - Skokie

5600 Old Orchard Rd

Skokie, IL 60077

District 3 - Rolling Meadows

2121 Euclid

Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

District 4 - Maywood

1500 Maybrook Ave

Maywood, IL 60153

District 5 - Bridgeview

10220 S 76th Ave

Bridgeview, IL 60455

District 6 - Markham

16501 S Kedzie Pkwy

Markham, IL 60428

Domestic Violence Court

555 W Harrison

Chicago, IL 60607

Juvenile Center Building

2245 W Ogden Ave, Rm 13

Chicago, IL 60602

Criminal Court Building

2650 S California Ave, Rm 526

Chicago, IL 60608

Daley Center Divisions/Departments

Civil Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 601

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Chancery Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 802

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Domestic Relations Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 802

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Civil Appeals

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 801

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Criminal Department

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 1006

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

County Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 1202

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Probate Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 1202

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Law Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Rm 801

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

Traffic Division

Richard J Daley Center

50 W Washington, Lower Level

Chicago, IL 60602

Hours: 8:30 am - 4:30 pm

FILED DATE: 7/21/2020 12:25 PM 2020CH03691 FILED DATE: 8/4/2020 11:32 AM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 28 of 30 PageID #:141
SANGAM?COMY SfiERIFFS OFFICE

"Keeping tJiePeace Since 1821"

Administration- (217) 753-6855

Records - (217) 753-6846

MCKCAMPBBLL

^Sheriffs Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

I,

follows:

<

Srw

Investigations - (217) 7

Corrections-(21 7

SGTJRACKDS-G^20- ^?

certify that I served Hiis summons as

D Personal service on an indftddual, by leavmg a copy of the summons and

complaint wiffc the defendant personally

a ^de le"wie_onan mdividu^by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint TO?_amember ofthe Ilousellold &irteen~fl3) years or oIdex;~5iribrmTng7aM"

person.ofthe_contellts thexeoff. aad also by ses-6mS ^ ^PY of &e summons; in a

sealed envelope, postage paid, to the mdivjEdixa! listed mthe "summons"

Corporation service, by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with an

agent or officer of the corporation listed m the summons.

Other service, as descrjibed t>elow.

Case ITuiBuber

.

Mame of defendant

Maine of other person

Summons leffc with

Sex: [I MV P } Race:

Date of Service

Date of Mailing

Address at wlucii paper was served:

^\ ' - °'nl

Approx. Age: .

2020 Tame (V.

Service, fees (Circle One) 50.00 or 100.00

Circle One: PAID PAUPER NO CHARGE

JacfcCa pbe , heriff/f Sangamon County Sheriff s Office

By . ^-1 , Deputy* 2/973

IN'PARTNERSEDDP -WITH THE COMMUNITY

FILED DATE: 8/4/2020 11:32 AM 2020CH03691

Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 29 of 30 PageID #:142
Case: 1:20-cv-05119 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/31/20 Page 30 of 30 PageID #:143