United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
JOSEPH SPIEZER. Plaintiff,
DICKLER, KAHN, SLOWIKOWSKI and ZAVELL, Ltd.; THE NORTHBROOK COUNTRY CONDOMINIUM ASSOC.; and BERKSON & SONS, Ltd., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
E. COX, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
reasons discussed herein, the Court rules as follows:
Defendant Dicker, Kahn, Slowikowski and Zavell Ltd.'s
(“DKSV”) Motion to Dismiss  is granted. All
claims against DKSV are dismissed.
Defendants Northbrook Country Condominium Association and
Berkson & Sons Ltd.'s Motion to Dismiss  is
granted as to Count I, and entered and continued as to Count
Plaintiff and Defendants Northbrook Country Condominium
Association and Berkson & Sons Ltd. shall provide
additional briefing regarding Count II. Defendants' brief
is due 12/23/2019 and Plaintiff's brief is due 1/13/2020.
the Court's review of Plaintiff's pro se
Complaint and the accompanying materials, this case is the
latest in a heavily litigated property dispute. The Court
will focus only on the facts that are relevant to the pending
motions as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. Where
Plaintiff's Complaint is confusing or incomplete, the
Court refers to the facts recited in the state court
litigation that preceded the instant suit.
mother, June Spiezer, died in November 2011. (Dkt. 1 at
¶ 4.) Defendant Northbrook Country Condominium
Association (“the Association”), acting through
its Board of Directors (“the Board”),
filed a forcible entry complaint against the June Spiezer
Trust and June Spiezer as Trustee in September 2012, seeking
to recover common expenses owed on her condominium.
(Id. at ¶ 2); Bd. of Mgrs of Northbrook
Country Condo. Assoc. v. Spiezer, 103 N.E.2d 870, 871,
at ¶ 1 ( Ill. App. 2018). After the trial court entered
default judgment and an order of possession in favor of the
Association, Plaintiff successfully moved to have those
orders vacated; the trial court then denied Plaintiff's
motion to quash service and entered another order in favor of
the Board. Bd. of Mgrs. of Northbrook Country Condo.
Assoc., 103 N.E.2d at 871, at ¶ 1.
was eventually named trustee over his mother's trust, and
transferred the condominium from the trust to himself on
January 4, 2013 via quitclaim deed. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 12.) In
2014, the Board rented the subject unit and had paid off the
overdue common expenses by January 2015. (Id. at
¶ 16.) At some point, Plaintiff became aware that Board
had rented the unit and filed a motion in the state court
seeking an accounting. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Plaintiff
claims that the Board had obtained $14, 000 in
“surplus” as of November 2015, and that Defendant
Berkson & Sons Ltd. (“Berkson & Sons”)
“improperly held such sums and failed and refused to
turnover said sums to the plaintiff.” (Id.,
Count II at ¶¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff alleges that the
positive balance on the unit was approximately $78, 000 as of
the filing of his complaint in the instant action.
(Id., Count II at ¶ 10.)
for reasons that are not germane to the instant motions,
Plaintiff was unsuccessful in all his state court litigation.
Plaintiff alleges that attorneys for the Board (presumably
Defendant DKSV) hand delivered a letter and all documents
filed related to the state court case, and that the
attorneys, the Board, and the state court judge
“engaged in ex parte communications in
violation of Supreme Court Rule 63.” (Id. at
¶28, ¶ 31.) Plaintiff also alleges that an attorney
for the Board warned Plaintiff not to appeal an unfavorable
ruling because they had “friends [on the Illinois
Appellate Court], too.” (Id. at ¶ 40.)
filed the instant suit on March 25, 2019, and the parties
consented to this Court's jurisdiction on October 25,
2019. (Dkt. 1, 29.) Plaintiff's complaint brings two
causes of action. Count I is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and appears to be against the Association and
DKSV (Berkson & Sons are not mentioned anywhere in this
Count). Count II is slightly less clear, but from the
Court's review of the allegations appears to be a claim
under 735 ILCS 5/9-111.1. All Defendants filed to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint, and those motions are now fully
briefed and ripe for disposition.
have moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). In ruling on a motion pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) the Court must treat the allegations in the
complaint as true and give the Plaintiff the benefit of any
reasonable and favorable inferences ...