You are on page 1of 21

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION


Christopher Stoer !
!
P"i#ti$$s, !
! No% &'() CH'*+,-
! .Tr"#s$erre/ $ro0 Ch"#1er2
! to L"3!
! 45/6e M17r"th
M"r8 Stoer, i#/i9i/5"2 "#/ /:" ! Roo0 (-'+
Ste"th C5es ! -;''"0
De$1o# I#/5stries, LLC !
(LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ARIZONA) !
A#/re3 H"2s,i#/i9i/5"2, ! D"te No9% ((, &'()
A#to#i" H"2s, i#/i9i/5"2, !
S"r"h <518, i#/i9i/5"2% !
H"2s Fir0 LLC !
4oh# Does ( thr5 (' et "
De$e#/"#ts
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, Christopher Stoller 65 (Stoller), by and through his
attorney, Wayne hine, and !o"plain of the #efendant$s, son Mar% Stoller &', doing business
as Stealth Cues, #ef!on (ndustries, ))C, a li"ited )iability Co"pany of *ri+ona herein after
referred to as Mar%, upon personal infor"ation and belief as to the a!ti,ities of others and all
other "atters, and state as follo-s.
NATURE OF ACTION
/0 1his is an a!tion against the defendants for de!laratory 2udg"ent, fraudulent
"isrepresentation, Con,ersion, fraud, intentional infli!ted of e"otional stress, related
!lai"s arising fro" a fa"ily relationship bet-een Christopher Stoller 65, and his son
/
Mar% Stoller &'0 3y this a!tion, Christopher Stoller see%s, inter alia, de!laratory relief,
!o"pensatory da"ages, puniti,e da"ages, an in2un!tion and and attorney4s fees and
!osts0
PARTIES
50 Christopher Stoller, 65 is a disable adult and a resident of Coo% County, (llinois0
'0 Mar% Stoller, &', is the oldest Son of Christopher Stoller, a resident of *ri+ona0
&0 Stealth Cues is a dba of Mar% Stoller, -ho does business in Coo% County, (llinois and
-ho operates his business out of his rental ho"e0
50 #ef!on (ndustries, ))C (LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ARIZONA) (#ef!on) a
6shell7 !orporation, a one "an operation, -hi!h is the alter ego of Mar% Stoller and does
business regularly -ithin Coo% County0 #ef!on is a one "an operation,, privately held
corporation in which the principal shareholder, president, and CEO are the same person,
Mark Stoller. There is a unity of interest and ownership between the Defcon and its
euitable owner, Mark Stoller, that the separate personalities of the corporation, Defcon and
the sole owner do not in reality e!ist. Second, there is an ineuitable result if the acts of
Mark Stoller and"or Defcon are treated as those of himself and"or of the corporation alone.
#See F. Hoffman-La Roche v. Superior Court, $%& Cal. 'pp. (th )*+, ),- #+&&./.Er0o the
1shell2 corporation of Defcon is a necessary party to this suit and all of the acts and torts that
Mark Stoller is char0ed with likewise attributed to his 1shell2 corporation, Defcon.
..a The law firm which represents Mark Stoller, 3ays 4irm 55C, a Chica0o law firm located
at .. 6. 6acker Drive, $(
th
4loor, Chica0o, 7llinois -&-&$. 'ttorneys *ndre- 8ays, indi,idually,
5
*ntonia 8ays (ndi,idually and Sarah 3u!%, indi,idually0
5b0 9or purposes of this Co"plaint for (n2un!ti,e and Other elief, any referen!e to
the a!ts of Mar% Stoller shall "ean that su!h a!ts are attributable to, by and through the a!ts of
#ef!on (ndustries ))C$s offi!ers, "e"bers, o-ners, dire!tors, e"ployees, salespersons,
representati,es and:or other agents0
VENUE
60 ;enue is proper pursuant to <'5 ()CS 5:5=/>/ 1he dispute at issue o!!urred in
Coo% County, (llinois0 Plaintiff is a resident of Coo% County and #efendant
regularly does business in Coo% County0
<0 *n a!tual !ase or !ontro,ersy has arisen bet-een the parties0
?0 Plaintiff has been in2ured by the #efendant4s !ondu!t and has
suffered da"ages resulting therefro"0
4URISDICTION
1his !ourt has 2urisdi!tion o,er the parties, the Plaintiff is a resident of Coo% County
and the #efendants -ho regularly do business -ithin Coo% County0 @urisdi!tion also lies -ithin
the state -here the in2ury o!!urs see /'5 9'd /5>> Janmark Inc v. T Reidy.
FACTUAL <ACK7ROUND
A0 Christopher Stoller is a 65 year old disabled !iti+en0 Christopher is the father of Mar%
Stoller0 Christopher suffers fro" depression, e"otional stress, o,er the loss of his -ife of '?
'
years due to sui!ide on @une 5, 5>><0 On *ugust 6
th
of 5>//, Christopher$s youngest son #a,id,
5A, died due to an o,er dose of drugs on *ugust 6, 5>//0 Christopher$s lady friend -as %illed in
a train a!!ident on @uly &
th
5>//0
/>0 )eo Stoller 6?, brother of Christopher, filed a Petition for Buardianship of
Christopher Stoller$s estate and person in 5>>A in )a%e County (llinois >AP A5<0 On *pril /,
5>/> a guardian at )itie" -as *ppointed for Christopher Stoller E=hi:it (0 Christopher Stoller
-as de!lared 6totally -ithout understanding or !apa!ity to "a%e and !o""uni!ate de!isions
regarding his person and totally unable to "anage his estate or finan!ial affairs on 9eb 5>, 5>//
-hen the )a%e Counter Probable Court appointed a Plenary Buardian for Christopher Stoller
E=hi:it &% Christopher -as restored to !o"pensatory on O!t0 '> 5>/'0
/
((% Christopher Stoller -as in!ar!erated fro" 4"#5"r2 &'
th
o$ &''- 5#ti A565st >',
&'(>
5
0 On O1to:er >'
th
, &'(> Christopher Stoller -as Ordered restored to !o"peten!y0
E=hi:it &%(
/50 On or about No,0 /<, 5>/< Mar% !alled his father Christopher Stoller and said he
!ould get his father a &'? return on Christopher$s retire"ent "oney fro" a
"utual fund he %ne- of0 Mar% as%ed his father to send hi" all of his retire"ent
funds so that he !ould in,est the" for his dad0 Mar% told his dad that he !ould
ha,e his "oney ba!% any ti"e he as%ed for it an that Mar% -ould not spend it on
anything other than to in,est it for his father0 Christopher sent Mar% C*+,'''
E=hi:it &."!%
/'0 (n #e!e"ber of 5>/' Christopher !alled Mar% Stoller and reDuested that his son
/ E=hi:it &%(
5 Christopher Stoller Case No No. 117330 is on Appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.
&
send hi" a !opy of the bro%erage a!!ount sho-ing the "utual fund a!!ount0
Mar% said if Christopher -ould ha,e to pay the the !apitol gains on the in!rease
in the ,alue of the "utual fund0 Mar% said that he had to "eet -ith his a!!ountant
to dis!uss it0 On or about #e!e"ber '/, 5>/' Christopher Stoller !alled his son
Mar% and reDuested his C*+,'''%'' to be i""ediately returned0 Mar% said that
Christopher
Stoller -astes his "oney, and that he !ould in,est the @*+,''' in bro%erage
a!!ount and that by the ti"e he -ould be ready to retire he !ould ha,e
@+,','''%''E Mar% said he -asn$t going to return Christopher$s retire"ent "oney
fro" his retire"ent a!!ount0 Mar% said he -as going to in,est Christopher$s
retire"ent funds in #ef!on to buy pool !ues0 See a true and !orre!t !opy of Mar%
Stoller Stealth Cues -eb site "ar%ed as E=hi:it &"(% Mar% told his father
Christopher, 6Bo fu!% yourselfE7 Causing Christopher Stoller ser,er e"otional
stress0 On @anuary &
th
5>/& Christopher sent his son a letter de"anding his "oney
ba!%0 E=hi:it &""% #efendant, Mar% Stoller ad"itted !o""ingling his father
funds -ith those of #ef!on0
/&0 Christopher Stoller$s C6<,>>> in the a!!ounts of #ef!on and Stealth Cues0 Mar%
Stoller is a one "an operation -ho regularly !o="ingles his personal funds into
the a!!ounts of his 6shell7 !orporation #ef!on0
/50 Mar% !alled his father, Christopher Stoller on or about @anuary 5, 5>/& and said
that he 6-ould return his father$s retire"ent "oney of C6<,>>>, and not to !all
hi" until @anuary /6, 5>/&07
5
/60 Christopher !alled hi" on @anuary /5, 5>/&0 Mar% refused to ans-er his phone
after @anuary /6, 5>/&0
/<0 )eo Stoller sent an e"ail to Mar% Stoller de"anding return of the said retire"ent
"onies on @anuary /6, 5>/&0 Mar% Stoller refused to respond0 EAHI<IT &:%
/?0 On or about @anuary /6, 5>/& Christopher Stoller "ade a poli!e report to the
Northla%e Poli!e #epart"ent in Northla%e, (llinois to Offi!er Wo2ni+, eport No0
/&=>/&>'0 Offi!er Wo2ni+ !alled Mar% Stoller0 Mar% Stoller refused to tal% -ith
Offi!er Wo2ni+0 Mar% said he -as ta%ing 6the 5
th
*"end"ent0E7
/A0 0 On @anuary 5/, 5>/& Christopher Stoller filed a !o"plaint -ith the (llinois
Se!urities #epart"ent Mr. Frank Loscuito E=hi:it >% Mr )os!uito sent to
Mar% an //! letter0 Mar%$s la-yer Mr0 *ndre- 10 8ays sent a letter to Mr0
)os!uito, falsely !lai"ing that the retire"ent "onies that Christopher Stoller sent
his son Mar%, -as a gift0
5>0 On @anuary 55, 5>/& Christopher Stoller filed a "ail fraud !o"plaint -ith the
F0S0 Postal (nspe!tion Ser,i!e E=hi:it )% Christopher Stoller also filed a
!o"plaint -ith the (llinois *ttorney Beneral$s Offi!e E=hi:it )"%
5/0 Mar% Stoller has refused to return the said retire"ent funds of @*+,'''%''
!ausing the plaintiff ser,er e"otional stress and finan!ial hardship0 Christopher
has sin!e been for!ed to "o,e out of his retire"ent !o"pleG -hi!h pro,ided
"eals, furniture and house %eeping, into an old peoples ho"e, lo- in!o"e
apart"ent, -here he has no furniture and no "eals pro,ided0 Christopher does
not ha,e enough "oney to pay for his li,ing eGpenses, food and !urrent bills
6
be!ause of the in2ury !aused by his son and the defendants0
550 On or about Mar% Stoller !onta!ted his attorneys *ndre- 8ays, *ntonia 8ays and
Sarah 3u!% (Mar%$s )a-yers) and infor"ed hi" that he had ta%en C6<,>>> fro" his
father under false pretense, !lai"ing that he -ould in,est his father$s C6<,>>> -hile had
no intention to do so0 Con!o!ted a false affir"ati,e defense infor"ing Mar% not to
-orry that he !ould !lai" that the "onies that his father ga,e hi" to in,est -as really a
6gift7 an not to -orry that they -ould hand this "atter, 2ust li%e they did the pre,ious
"atter for hi" in )a%e County -hen Mar% had pre,iously sued his father su!!essfully0
When in fa!t Mar%$s la-yers %ne- that the said C6<,>>> -as not a gift be!ause the
Plaintiff had filed & !ri"inal !o"plaints against his son, Mar% for ta%ing the C6<,>>>0>>0
(t -as !lear that Mar% defrauded his father out of C6<,>>> aided and abetting by the
8ays )a- fir", his attorneys *ndre- 8ays, *ntonia 8ays and Sarah 3u!%0 See
Thornwood v. Jenner & Block, 344 N.E.2d ! "#ll.$%%.2&&3'. #n Januar(
o) 2&4 Mark in)or*ed his )ather that the +a(s ,r* told hi* that the
+a(s Fir* would %revail on -( clai*in. that /hristo%her .ave his son
the *one( as a .i)t0, so that he was not worried.
5'0 Mar% Stoller -as in possession of &> pie!es of Capodi"onte 9igurines that
belonged to Christopher Stoller, -hi!h are ,alued o,er C5>,>>>, along -ith ten
-ater !olor paintings by E"anuel -hi!h Mar% Stoller, has refused to return to his
father, Christopher -hi!h are ,alued at another C/>,>>>0
<
COUNT ONE
AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
.DECLARATORY 4UD7MENT +>, ILCS ,B&C+'(!
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
55(a)0 1he allegations in Paragraphs / through 5>(a) abo,e are in!orporated by referen!e
in this Count One as if fully restated herein0
5'0 On or about No,0 /<, 5>/' Mar% falsely represented that if his father, Christopher
ga,e hi" his retire"ent funds of C6<,>>> that Mar% -ould be able to greatly
in!rease the interest pay"ents for Christopher0 Mar% represented that in order to
"aGi"i+e the return on in,est"ent of Christopher$s retire"ent funds that
Christopher turn all of those funds o,er to Mar%0
5&0 Mar% represented that he had the %no-ledge, s%ill and the ability to in,est"ent
Christopher$s retire"ent funds in the highest returning in,est"ent0
550 #uring the negotiations Mar% &', had an unfair bargaining po-er o,er his
disabled father, Christopher 65, -ho is disabled, suffers fro" depression and 2ust
got out of 2ail after & H years0
560 #uring the negotiations in No,e"ber of 5>/', Mar% "ade fraudulent
indu!e"ents, pro"ises and other representations to his father that en!ouraged
hi" to send Mar% the retire"ent "onies by telling Christopher that Mar% !ould
get a 5>I return on Christopher$s "oney0
5<0 Christopher -ould not ha,e send Mar% all of his retire"ent funds of C6<,>> had
?
Mar% if !ertain indu!e"ents, pro"ises and other representations had not been
"ade by Mar%0
5?0 W8EE9OE Plaintiffs see% re!o,ery of a!tual and !o"pensatory da"agesJ
puniti,e da"agesJ attorney4s feesJ and eGpenses and !osts for in2uries !aused by
Mar%$s fraudulent indu!e"ent0 Plaintiff$s see%s su!h other and further relief as
this Court "ay dee" 2ust and proper or to -hi!h they "ay be entitled as a "atter
of la-0
&-% COUNT TWO AND AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION .FRAUD!
'>0 1he allegations in Paragraphs / through 5A abo,e are in!orporated by referen!e
in this Count t-o as if fully restated herein0
'/0 On or about No, /<, 5>/', defendants falsely and fraudulently represented to the
plaintiff that Mar% -ould ta%e Christopher$s retire"ent funds C6<,>>>, and put
the" in a "utual fund that -ould gi,e a return of 5>I0
'50 1he representations "ade by defendant -ere in fa!t false0 1he true fa!ts -ere
Mar% too% his father$s retire"ent funds and did not intend to in,est those funds
for his father but to %eep the "oney for hi"self and in,est it in #ef!on to buy
pool !ues0
''0 When the defendant "ade these false representations Mar% %ne- the" to be
false, and these representations -ere "ade by the defendant, -ith the intent to
defraud and de!ei,e plaintiff and -ith the intent to indu!e plaintiff to send Mar%
his retire"ent funds0 *t the ti"e defendant "ade the pro"ises to plaintiff,
defendants had no intention of perfor"ing the"0
A
'&0 Plaintiff, at the ti"e these representations -ere "ade by defendant and at
the ti"e plaintiff too% the a!tions herein alleged, -as ignorant of the falsity
of defendant$s representations and belie,ed the" to be true, and: or
Plaintiff, at the ti"e this pro"ise -as "ade and at the ti"e plaintiff too%
the a!tions herein alleged, -as ignorant of defendant$s se!ret intention not
to perfor" and plaintiff !ould not, in the eGer!ise of reasonable diligen!e,
ha,e dis!o,ered defendant$s se!ret intention0) (n relian!e on these
representations, plaintiff -as indu!ed to and did send his son C6<,>>>0 8ad
plaintiff %no-n the a!tual fa!ts, Plaintiff -ould not ha,e ta%en su!h a!tion,
if plaintiff had %no-n of the a!tual intention of defendant, plaintiff -ould
not ha,e ta%en su!h a!tion0 Plaintiff$s relian!e on defendant$s
representations -as 2ustified be!ause Mar% &' is the oldest son of
Christopher and Christopher 65, trusted his oldest son0
WHEREFORE *s a proGi"ate result of defendant$s fraud and de!eit and the fa!ts herein
alleged, plaintiff -as defrauded by reason of -hi!h plaintiff has been da"aged in the su" of
C6<,>>>0>>0
0 (n doing the a!ts herein alleged, defendant a!ted -ith oppression, fraud, and "ali!e, and
plaintiff is entitled to puniti,e da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>>0>>0

Plaintiffs pray for 2udg"ent against defendantKK and ea!h of the", as follo-s.
/0 9or !o"pensatory da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>>0>>J
50 9or puniti,e da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>0>>J
/>
'0 9or !osts of suit in!urred hereinJ and reasonable attorney$s fees0
&0 9or su!h other and further relief as the !ourt "ay dee" proper0
COUNT THREE
AND AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
.CONVERSION 735 ILCS 5/13-205 !
'50 1he allegations in Paragraphs / through '5 abo,e are
in!orporated by referen!e in this Count t-o as if fully
restated herein0
'60 Christopher Stoller had C6<,>>> of retire"ent funds0
'<0 1he #efendant i#te#tio#"2 i#ter$ere/ 3ith the
plaintiff$s personal property, C6<,>>> dollars eGer!ising
Ldo"inion and !ontrolL o,er it)
'?0 1hird, that the #efendant$s interferen!e /epri9e/ the
p"i#ti$$ o$ possessio# or 5se of the personal property,
the said C6<,>>> in Duestion0
'A0 The interference caused damages to the
plaintiff, the loss of his 8-),&&&.
&>0 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for 2udg"ent against
defendants and ea!h of the", as follo-s.
&/0 9or !o"pensatory da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>>0>>0
a0 9or puniti,e da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>0>>J
b0 9or !osts of suit in!urred hereinJ and reasonable
attorney$s fees0
//
!0 9or su!h other and further relief as the !ourt "ay
dee" proper0
COUNT FOUR
AND AS FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
.<AILMENT CLAIM
3
!
&50 1he allegations in Paragraphs / through &/ abo,e are in!orporated
by referen!e in this Count 9our as if fully restated herein0
&'0 Plaintiff had an agree"ent on @anuary /A, 5>>? -ith his son Mar%
to transfer or deli,er and the bailee, Mar%, agreed to a!!ept
eG!lusi,e possession of !ertain Capodi"onte 9igures and
Paintings, !lothing for a spe!ifi! purpose, to hold Christopher$s
possessions -hile Christopher -as in!ar!erated fro" @anuary 5/,
5>>A until *ugust '>, 5>/'0
&&0 Christopher deli,ered and:or transferred the eG!lusi,e possession
of the said property of the bailor to the bailee0
&50 Mar%, the bailee a!!eptan!e of eG!lusi,e possession by the bailee
on the agreed ter"s and !onditions that Mar% -ould hold it in his
!are not transfer to third parties and:or sell it0 Mar% had eG!lusi,e
possession and !ontrol of these ite"s fro" @anuary /A, 5>>? until
'Willia! ". #$S$, 2012 WL 3%3&7&& (#$S$ District Court for the District of South Cro!i"
#$%#) (llinois la- reDuires that a plaintiff establish the follo-ing ele"ents to sho- a pri"a fa!ie !ase
of bail"ent (/) an agree"ent by the bailor to transfer or deli,er and the bailee to a!!ept eG!lusi,e
possession of the property of the the goods for a spe!ified purposeJ (5) the a!tual deli,ery or transfer of
eG!lusi,e possession of the property of the bailor to the baileeJ and (a!!eptan!e of eG!lusi,e possession
by the bailee0 Williams v. U.S. supra (sin!e the da"age:theft see"s to ha,e allegedly o!!urred at the
O48ara air port, it follo-s that (llinois la- applies0
/5
the presen!e0
&60 Christopher Stoller "ade a de"and on or about Septe"ber /5,
5>/& for Mar% Stoller to return the said ite"s and he has refused0
&<0 1he bailee, Mar% has refused to return the said possessions to the
bailor, Christopher after Plaintiff4s "ade the reDuest for the
possession to be returned0
&?0 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for 2udg"ent against defendants
and ea!h of the", as follo-s.
/0 9or !o"pensatory da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>>0
50 9or puniti,e da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>0>>J
'0 9or !osts of suit in!urred hereinJ and reasonable
attorney$s fees0
&0 9or su!h other and further relief as the !ourt "ay dee"
proper0
CO#NT 5
CA#SE O' ACTION 'OR INTENTIONAL IN'LICTION O' EMOTIONAL
STRESS
(
&'. The !!e(tio"s i" Pr(r)hs % throu(h &' *o+e re i"cor)orte, *-
refere"ce i" this Cou"t .i+e s if fu!!- restte, herei".
5>0 1his !ause of a!tion for intentional infli!tion of e"otional distress
is pre"ised on the outrageous !ondu!t of the defendant, the son &', of the
& Knieriem v. Izzo, 55 (ll0 5# <' (/A6/), Public Finance Corp v. avis, 66 (ll0 5# ?5 (/A<6), Public
Finance! 66 (ll0 5# at ?A=A>0 See also oe vs. Calume" Ci"y, (6/ (ll0 5# '<& (/AA&)0 1he plaintiff
does not, ho-e,er, need to establish a !onte"poraneous physi!al i"pa!t or in2ury0 #onaker v. Smi"$,
556 90 'd &<< (<
th
Cir0 5>>>)0
/'
Plaintiff, ta%ing the entire retire"ent funds, C6<,>>> fro" his father
Christopher Stoller 65, lea,ing hi" penniless, su!h !ondu!t is so eGtre"e
and outrageous that is goes beyond all possible bounds of de!en!y in
Publi! 9inan!e Corporation ,0 #a,is, 66=(ll0 5# ?5, A>0 )ea,ing the
father, penniless, unable to buy his "onthly "edi!ations and gro!eries for
the "onth0(/A<6), and the estate"ent (Se!ond) of 1orts M&6 (/A65)0 See
also Rekosh v. Parks, /%0 I!!. A)). /, 12 (#$$$). 3"ierie4, ## I!!. #, t 20.
5/0 The ,efe","t Mr5 Sto!!er i"te",e, to cuse, or rec5!ess!- or
co"scious!- ,isre(r,e, the )ro**i!it- of cusi"(, his fther, the )!i"tiff to
suffer e4otio"! ,istress *- ,efru,i"( his fther out of his e"tire retire4e"t
ccou"t of 607,$$$. The ,efe","t rec5!ess!- or co"scious!- ,isre(r,e, the
)ro**i!it- of cusi"( e4otio"! ,istress to Christo)her Sto!!er *ecuse
Defe","t 8s certi", or su*st"ti!!- certi", tht his co",uct the t5i"( of
Christo)her Sto!!er e"tire retire4e"t fu",s 8ou!, cuse e4otio"! ,istress.
Pu*!ic .i""ce, 00 I!!. #, t '$.
1#. The )!i"tiff suffere, se+ere or e9tre4e e4otio"! ,istress ",
co"ti"ues to suffer ", e",ure it Pu*!ic .i""ce, 00 I!!. #, t '$. P!i"tiff
suffers fro4 (rief, 8orr-, hu4i!itio", sh4e, 8hich "o reso"*!e )erso" c"
e9)ect to e",ure. Christo)her hs sou(ht he!) fro4 ther)ists for
cou"se!i"(.
1/. Mr5 Sto!!er &/, the so" of the P!i"tiff:s co",uct, ,efru,i"( his fther,
Christo)her Sto!!er 01, out of his e"tire retire4e"t fu",s ctu!!- ",
)ro9i4te!- cuse, ", co"ti"ues to cuse P!i"tiff:s e4otio"! ,istress, (rief,
sh4e, hu4i!itio", fi!ure to )- 4e,ic! *i!!s, )- for his 4e,ic!
)rescri)tio"s ", e+e" to )urchse )ro)er c"e.
/&
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for 2udg"ent against defendant and ea!h
of the", as follo-s.
/0 9or !o"pensatory da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>>0>>J
50 9or puniti,e da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>0>>J
'0 9or !osts of suit in!urred hereinJ and reasonable
attorney$s fees0
&0 9or su!h other and further relief as the !ourt "ay dee"
proper0
*nd a preli"inary in2un!tion against the !he!%ing a!!ounts
and any and all in,est"ent a!!ounts of the defendants,
a!!ounts re!ei,able, of disbursing any funds up to an
in!luding C/>>,>>>0>>, during the penden!y of this
litigation0

CO#NT %
CA#SE O' ACTION 'OR WILL'#L AND WANTON MISCOND#CT
NE)LI)ENCE
5
1&. The !!e(tio"s i" Pr(r)hs % throu(h 1/ *o+e re i"cor)orte, *-
refere"ce i" this Cou"t Si9 fu!!- restte, herei".
550 1he #efendant, Mar% Stoller &', the oldest son of the Plaintiff
5 (n tort la-, negligen!e is a distin!t !ause of a!tion0 1he estate"ent (Se!ond) of torts defines
negligen!e as 6!ondu!t that falls belo- the standard established by la- for the prote!tion of other
against unreasonable ris% of har"07 Negligen!e generally !onsists of fi,e ele"ents, in!luding the
follo-ing. (/) a duty of !are o-ed by the defendant to the plaintiffJ (e) a brea!h of that dutyJ (')an
a!tual !ausal !onne!tion bet-een the defendant$s !ondu!t and the resulting har"J(&)proGi"ate
!ause, -hi!h relates to -hether the har" -as foreseeableJ and (5) da"ages resulting fro" the
defendant$s !ondu!t0
/5
Christopher had a spe!ifi! duty to his father to safeguard his personal
property, the C6<,>>>, the Capodi"onte 9igures, Paintings his !lothing0
560 1he #efendant brea!hed that that duty, -hen he failed to return
to Plaintiff his C6<,>>> and the Capodi"onte 9igures, Paintings his
!lothing0
5<0 1here is a dire!t an a!tual !ausal !onne!tion bet-een the
defendant$s !ondu!t and the resulting har" that the defendant !aused the
Plaintiff by his failing to return the said personal property of the Plaintiff
to the Plaintiff -hen it -as reDuested0
5?0 ProGi"ate !ause0 1he har" to the Plaintiff -as foreseeableJ and
the Plaintiff suffered da"ages resulting fro" the defendant$s !ondu!t0

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for 2udg"ent against defendant and
ea!h of the", per !ount as follo-s, per !ourt.
/0 9or !o"pensatory da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>>0>>J
50 9or puniti,e da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>0>>J
'0 9or !osts of suit in!urred hereinJ and reasonable
attorney$s fees0
&0 9or su!h other and further relief as the !ourt "ay dee"
proper0
*nd a preli"inary in2un!tion against the !he!%ing a!!ounts
and any and all in,est"ent a!!ounts of the defendants,
/6
a!!ounts re!ei,able, of disbursing any funds up to an
in!luding C/>>,>>>0>>, during the penden!y of this
litigation0
AS 'OR A SE*ENT+ CA#SE O' ACTION (#N,#ST
ENRIC+MENT
%
)

1'. The !!e(tio"s i" Pr(r)hs % throu(h 12 *o+e re i"cor)orte, *-
refere"ce i" this Cou"t Si9 fu!!- restte, herei".
60. 1he #efendant, Mar% Stoller &', the oldest son of the Plaintiff
Christopher -as enri!hed by the unauthori+ed ta%ing of the Plaintiff$s
retire"ent funds of C6<,>>>0
6/0 1he #efendant, the &' year old son of the the Plaintiff Christopher
Stoller, 65, too% his entire retire"ent funds of C6<,>>> at the eGpense of
the Plaintiff, lea,ing hi" destitute0
650 (t is against eDuity and good !ons!ien!e to per"it the other party
to retain the C6<,>>> fro" the #efendant, that -hi!h is sought to
be re!o,ered0
6'0 Mar% Stoller, &', ta%ing of the entire retire"ent funds fro" his
father, Christopher Stoller was si*%l( un)air and not ri.ht.
6What Do You Need To Prove To Win An Unjust Enrichment Claim?
1n2ust enrich*ent is an o-li.ation that the law creates even without an( contract or
a.ree*ent. #n order )or a %lainti3 to %revail on a clai* o) un2ust enrich*ent, that %art(
is re4uired to %rove that "' the other %art( was enriched, "2' at that %art(5s e6%ense,
and "3' that it is a.ainst e4uit( and .ood conscience to %er*it the other %art( to retain
what is sou.ht to -e recovered.
/<
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for 2udg"ent against defendant and ea!h
of the", per !ount as follo-s, per !ourt.
/0 9or !o"pensatory da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>>0>>J
50 9or puniti,e da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>0>>J
'0 9or !osts of suit in!urred hereinJ and reasonable
attorney$s fees0
&0 9or su!h other and further relief as the !ourt "ay dee"
proper0
*nd a preli"inary in2un!tion against the !he!%ing a!!ounts
and any and all in,est"ent a!!ounts of the defendants,
a!!ounts re!ei,able, of disbursing any funds up to an
in!luding C/>>,>>>0>>, during the penden!y of this
litigation0
/?
AS 'OR A EI)+T CA#SE O' ACTION (Ai-i./ a.- a0122i./
a.- 34.!5i6a37)
7

0&. The !!e(tio"s i" Pr(r)hs % throu(h 0/ *o+e re i"cor)orte, *-
refere"ce i" this Cou"t Si9 fu!!- restte, herei".
01. Mr5 Sto!!er &/, o8e, ,ut- to his fther, the P!i"tiff, Christo)her
Sto!!er "ot to ,efru, hi4.
660 The ;-s L8 fir4, A",re8 ;-s, A"to"i ;-s ", Srh Buc5
8ere 8re if the ,ut- tht Mr5 Sto!!er &/ o8e, to his ,is*!e, fther,
Christo)her Sto!!er 01, "ot to ,efru, hi4 out of his e"tire retire4e"t fu",s of
607,$$$ for !! of the reso"s )re+ious!- stte, herei".
07. ;-s L8 fir4, A",re8 ;-s, A"to"i ;-s ", Srh Buc5 5"e8
or shou!, h+e 5"o8" tht their c!ie"t Mr5 Sto!!er *reche, tht ,ut- ",<or
co44itte, tort (i"st his fther, the P!i"tiff.
02. ;-s L8 fir4, A",re8 ;-s, A"to"i ;-s ", Srh Buc5 8ere
", re 8re of *reech ",<or of the tort Mr5 co44itte, (i"st his
fther the )!i"tiff.
6A0 ;-s L8 fir4, A",re8 ;-s, A"to"i ;-s ", Srh Buc5 h+e
ssiste, their c!ie"t Mr5 Sto!!er i" co44itti"( the tort ", or *reech
7$idin. and a-ettin. and cons%irac( clai*s ,nd their roots in cri*inal law. #n the
civil conte6t, the( lead to lia-ilit( )or those who hel% other actors or a *ain actor
"usuall( )or law(ers it is the client' to co**it so*e tort a.ainst a third %art(. #n
%ractice, this o)ten involves a clai* that the law(er hel%ed the client either
co**it a )raud on a third %art( or -reach so*e dut( "usuall( a ,duciar( dut(' to a
third %art(. 8hen -rou.ht a.ainst law(ers, these in9concert lia-ilit( clai*s, in
*ost 2urisdictions, involve the )ollowin. ele*ents: "' a dut( owed -( the client to
a third %art(; "2' that the law(er is aware o) the dut( owed -( the client to the
third %art(; "3' that the client -reaches that dut( and<or co**its a tort a.ainst
that third %art(; "4' that the law(er is aware o) the -reach and<or tort co**itted
-( the client; "!' that the law(er assists the client in co**ittin. the tort and<or
-reach; and "=' that the third %art( su3ers so*e
da*a.e. Thornwood v. Jenner & Block, 344 N.E.2d ! "#ll.$%%.2&&3
/A
", h+e co"s)ire, 8ith hi4
2
.
7$. The P!i"tiff Christo)her Sto!!er hs suffere, ,4(es.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for 2udg"ent against defendant,
indi,idually, per !ount as follo-s, per !ourt.
/0 9or !o"pensatory da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>>0>>J
50 9or puniti,e da"ages in the su" of C/>>,>>0>>J
'0 9or !osts of suit in!urred hereinJ and reasonable
attorney$s fees0
&0 9or su!h other and further relief as the !ourt "ay dee"
proper0
*nd a preli"inary in2un!tion against the !he!%ing a!!ounts
and any and all in,est"ent a!!ounts of the defendants,
a!!ounts re!ei,able, of disbursing any funds up to an
in!luding C/>>,>>>0>>, during the penden!y of this
litigation0
Wayne Rhine, Suite
500
309 W. Washington
Chicago, Illinois
? C(;() CONSP(*CN *N# CONCE1 O9 *C1(ON
Con!ert of a!tion eGists -hen t-o or "ore persons perfor" -rongful a!ts
pursuant to a !o""on design or one person gi,es substantial assistan!e to another
%no-ing that the others !ondu!t !onstitutes a brea!h of legal duty0 Ci,il !onspira!y
in,ol,es t-o or "ore persons -ho !o"bine for the purpose of a!!o"plishing, by their
!on!erted a!tion, either a la-ful purpose by unla-ful "eans or an unla-ful purpose by
la-ful "eans0 S"ith ,0 Eli )illy O Co0, /'< (ll0 5d 555 (/AA>)J ;an!e ,0 Chandler, 5'/ (ll0
*pp0 'd <&< (/AA5)0
* !onspirator need not parti!ipate in all a!ti,ities of a !onspira!y, nor be!o"e a
"e"ber at its in!eption0 (t is only ne!essary that he %no-ingly !ontribute his efforts in
furtheran!e of it0
5>
60606
/%#=12' 12/#
5/