1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

REASSIGNED CASE STATUS REPORT 

I. Nature of the Case 

a. Attorneys of record for each party. 

Kenneth G. Anspach and Robert J. Augenlicht for Plaintiff. 

Halli D. Cohn, Molly S. DiRago, John B. Sample, and Benjamin S. Geller for Defendant. 

b. Basis for federal jurisdiction. 

Diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

c. Nature of the claim(s) and any counterclaim(s), including relief sought. 

Plaintiff Carla J. Kappel, as mother and next friend of the children of Ozan 

Tarabus, deceased, and as Special Administrator of his Estate (“Plaintiff” or “Kappel”), 

brought a claim for wrongful death under 740 ILCS §180/1 against Defendant, Lumber 

Liquidators, Inc. n/k/a LL Flooring, Inc. (“Defendant” or “LL Flooring”) (collectively the 

“Parties”). Plaintiff brought this claim in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois 

alleging laminate flooring manufactured and marketed by Defendant caused the death of 

decedent Ozan Tarabus. See Dkt. 1; Ex. A Pl.’s Compl. The suit was subsequently 

removed to this Court. 

Plaintiff alleges laminate flooring manufactured by Defendant emanated 

“formaldehyde and other chemicals” in the home of the Decedent Ozan Tarabus. Id. 

Plaintiff continues that Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in manufacturing of 

the laminate flooring leading to the alleged defective condition of the flooring. Plaintiff 

then alleges the exposure due to the defective condition of the flooring caused the 

Decedent to develop liver and pancreatic cancer resulting in the decedent’s death on July 

CARLA J. KAPPEL, as mother and next )

 

friend of Kendall Isabella Tarabus, a minor, 

and Aydan James Tarabus, a minor, as 

) 

) 

 

Special Administrator of the Estate of ) 

OZAN TARABUS, deceased, ) 

) 

 

Plaintiff, )

) 

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-05123

v. ) Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

)

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., 

a Delaware corporation, 

)

) 

) 

 

Defendant. )

 ) 

Case: 1:20-cv-05123 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/12/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:53
2 

18, 2018. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages on behalf of the children of the Decedent 

as a result. Defendant has not brought any counterclaims in this action. 

II. Proceedings to Date and Discovery

a. Summary of discovery that has been taken and remains to be taken. 

In June 2015, various individual and class actions lodged against Defendant for 

consumer protection and marketing claims for alleged deficiencies in laminate flooring 

were centralized and transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. The cases were 

centralized in two MDLs (1:15-md-2627 (E.D. Va.)) and (1:16-md-2743 (E.D. Va.)). In 

March of 2018, a class action settlement was reached. Decedent Tarabus was a member 

of that class as it relates to the Formaldehyde MDL (1:15-md-2627). 

Immediately following the removal of this case to this Court, on the motion of 

Defendant, the case was transferred by the J.P.M.L. to the E.D. Va. The E.D. Va. 

dismissed the case on Defendant's motion on the stated basis that the claim for wrongful 

death was precluded by the class action settlement. The dismissal was subsequently 

vacated on appeal and the case remanded to the E.D. Va. for further proceedings. On the 

motion of Plaintiff, the case was returned to the J.P.M.L. with a suggestion of remand to 

this Court. The J.P.M.L. granted the remand. 

While the Fourth Circuit held the class action settlement does not bar Plaintiff’s 

wrongful death claims, Defendant maintains that there is still substantial factual overlap 

between this case and the Formaldehyde MDL. While no case-specific discovery has 

been taken in this proceeding, to promote efficient use of this Court and the Parties’ 

resources, Defendant strongly recommends the Parties use the general discovery from the 

Formaldehyde MDL. 

Plaintiff reports that Plaintiff has not been able to locate the previously produced 

general discovery information. The parties will meet and confer on this issue within 30 

days of the exchange of initial disclosures and present the Court with a proposal on the 

use of prior discovery and depositions taken in the MDL. 

b. Depositions - approximate number taken and estimated number still to be taken. 

Besides the depositions taken in the MDL, no case-specific depositions have been 

taken in this proceeding. 

Plaintiff: While it is uncertain how many witnesses will actually need to be 

deposed for oral testimony and/or documents, Defendant's estimate is considered 

reasonably possible at this time. Defendant: Estimates that there are about 10 fact witness 

depositions and 3 to 5 experts per side. 

c. Discovery cut-off date. If no discovery cut-off date has been set, please suggest one. 

No discovery cut-off date is set. 

Plaintiff: a progress status should be set in nine months, when it can be 

determined with much more certainty what progress was made and what remains to be 

accomplished. The Court should bear in mind, that although Defendant has been 

involved in this matter for a very long time, Plaintiff has not been involved at all and 

therefore needs more latitude for the time it needs to complete discovery. Furthermore, 

the issues are, in large part, different from those that were involved in the claims in E.D. 

Va. 

Case: 1:20-cv-05123 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/12/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:54
3 

Defendant: suggests nine months for fact and expert discovery related to the case 

specific issues which include, but not limited to, discovery related to Plaintiffs’ specific 

flooring, causation of Mr. Tarabus’ death and damages. 

d. Deadline to amend the pleadings. If no such date has been set, please suggest one. 

The Parties suggest 30 days from the filing of this Joint Status Report. 

III. Pending Motions 

a. Description of all pending motions, and any briefing schedule set. 

There are no pending motions before the Court. 

b. Summary of all substantive rulings that have been entered. 

Plaintiff: None, except the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

Circuit vacating the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint and remanding for further 

proceedings. Defendant: None. 

IV. Trial 

a. Whether there has been a jury demand. 

Yes, a jury has demand has been filed. 

b. Whether a trial date has been set; if not, the earliest date the Parties anticipate 

being able to commence a trial. 

The earliest Plaintiff anticipates being able to commence a trial is 24 months from 

opening discovery. The earliest Defendant anticipates being able to commence a trial is 

15 months from opening discovery. 

c. Whether a final pretrial order has been filed; if not, whether there is a deadline for 

filing a final pretrial order. 

No final pretrial order is filed nor is there a deadline for a final pretrial order. 

d. Estimated length of trial. 

Plaintiff considers it is too early to determine a length of trial. Defendant 

estimates seven (7) days for trial. 

V. Referrals and Settlement 

a. The assigned magistrate judge and whether the parties have discussed consenting to 

having the magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings in the case. 

The Parties do not consent to conducting all further proceedings before the 

magistrate judge. 

b. Whether any settlement discussions have occurred, the status of any discussions, 

and whether referral to the magistrate judge for assistance would be helpful. 

The Parties had initial discussions regarding settlement, but no progress was 

made. The Parties do not believe referral to the magistrate judge will be helpful at this 

time. 

(6) Any other information that the parties believe is pertinent to the Court's understanding 

of the status of the case.

Case: 1:20-cv-05123 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/12/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:55
4 

This 12th day of June, 2024. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/John B. Sample /s/ Kenneth Anspach 

John B. Sample Kenneth Anspach 

Illinois Bar No. 6321438 Illinois Bar No. 0059048 

john.sample@troutman.com ken@anspachlawoffice.com 

Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP Anspach Law Office 

227 W. Monroe, Suite 3900 77 West Washington St, Ste. 1420. 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Telephone: 312.579.5932 Telephone: 312.407-7888 

/s/Robert J. Augenlicht 

Robert J. Augenlicht 

Law Office of Robert J. Augenlicht 

8833 Gross Point Rd. 

Suite 208 

Skokie, IL 60077 

312.526.3928 

Case: 1:20-cv-05123 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/12/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:56
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 12th day of June, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of this Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of 

such filing to all counsel of record: 

Kenneth Anspach Robert J. Augenlicht 

The Law Offices of Kenneth Anspach Kurtz & Augenlicht LLP 

111 West Washington Street 123 West Madison Street 

Suite 1625 Suite 700 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 Chicago, Illinois 60602 

Telephone: (312) 407-7888 Telephone: (312) 526-3928 

ken@anspachlawoffice.com raugenlicht@kalawchicago.com 

/s/ John B. Sample 

John B. Sample 

Case: 1:20-cv-05123 Document #: 18 Filed: 06/12/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:57