`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`ISELA CARMINE,
`on behalf of herself and all others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 20-cv-4589
`
`
`Jury Demanded
`
`MACY’S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Isela Carmine, on behalf of herself and a putative class (“Plaintiff” or “Carmine”),
`
`brings this Class Action Complaint against Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. (“Macy’s”) and alleges
`
`the following:
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`A New York Times article published on January 18, 2020 introduced Americans to the
`
`then relatively unknown company Clearview AI, Inc (“Clearview”). The article described a
`
`dystopian surveillance database, owned and operated by a private company and leased to the
`
`highest bidder.
`
`2.
`
`On February 27, 2020, BuzzFeed News released an article based on a review of
`
`Clearview’s documents, revealing that Clearview is working or contracted with over 2,200 law
`
`enforcement agencies, companies, and individuals around the world.
`
`3.
`
`The same article and subsequent reporting by several news outlets revealed that
`
`Defendant Macy’s, among other private businesses and government entities, was using
`
`Clearview’s surveillance database to aid in its operations.
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
`
`4.
`
`Macy’s has run the identities of over six thousand individual customers through the
`
`database.
`
`5.
`
`Clearview AI’s database includes the photographs, and personal and private data,
`
`including names, home addresses, and work addresses, of millions of Americans. Clearview
`
`acquired the billions of data points by “scraping” or harvesting the data from publicly available
`
`internet-based platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.
`
`6.
`
`Clearview’s database is unique – it has run every one of the 3 billion photographs it has
`
`acquired through facial recognition software to extract and index the unique biometric data from
`
`each face. The database thus also contains the biometric identifiers and information of millions
`
`of Americans. Any private citizen can be identified by uploading a photo to the database. Once
`
`identified, the end-user – here Macy’s – then has access to all of the individual’s personal details
`
`that Clearview has also obtained.
`
`7.
`
`Macy’s acquisition and use of consumer’s biometric information and identifiers is illegal
`
`in Illinois.
`
`8.
`
`Macy’s practice of identifying and tracking their customers using Clearview’s illegal
`
`surveillance database is unfair and directly violates each customers’ right to privacy.
`
`Parties
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Isela Carmine is a natural person and resident of this district. She maintains an
`
`active presence on social media, including Facebook and Instagram. She also uses Venmo to
`
`make and accept payments to other individuals. Carmine is a regular customer at Macy’s.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, doing business in
`
`Illinois, with twenty-one department stores in the state.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`11.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and the Class Action Fairness
`
`Act (“CAFA”) because there are 100 or more members of the class, the parties and putative class
`
`members are minimally diverse and the aggregate amount in controversy is greater than
`
`$5,000,000.
`
`12.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Macy’s because they conduct a substantial
`
`amount of business here which forms the basis of Plaintiff’s claims. Macy’s operates multiple
`
`stores in Illinois and is registered to do business in this state.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial amount of the
`
`acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Illinois.
`
`Macy’s Surveillance and Clearview’s Database
`
`14.
`
`Clearview ‘scrapes,’ ‘harvests,’ or otherwise obtains information and photos of millions
`
`of Americans from the internet, in particular social media platforms like Facebook and
`
`Instagram. That is, they use automated software or processes to obtain massive amounts of data
`
`without the consent or knowledge of the platform users.
`
`15. Macy’s stores are equipped with video surveillance that captures the images of its visitors
`
`and customers.
`
`16. Macy’s sends or has sent pictures of persons who have visited its stores to Clearview, to
`
`identify the people in the pictures and obtain their personal information.
`
`17.
`
`Clearview then runs the photos through facial recognition software which identifies the
`
`photos that contain faces.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
`
`18.
`
`The faces are then processed by Clearview’s software, and their biometric data is
`
`extracted. The biometric data is a collection of vectors and/or other data points that allows faces
`
`to be classified, searched and indexed.
`
`19.
`
`Clearview’s database links the biometric data to the other data Clearview has scraped so
`
`an end-user, like Macy’s, can find out where the photos came from along with a significant
`
`amount of personal and private details about a given individual.
`
`20.
`
`In short, anyone with access to the database, including a reseller of the database or end-
`
`user, can upload a single photo and identify the person in real-time. A single picture on the
`
`internet means that any private citizen can immediately be identified and tracked.
`
`21.
`
`Clearview sells or leases access to the surveillance database to public and private entities,
`
`for profit. Clearview additionally contracts with third parties, like Macy’s, to sell or lease access
`
`to the surveillance database.
`
`22. Macy’s has a paid contract with Clearview.
`
`23.
`
`The pictures and images from video surveillance at Macy’s are uploaded to Clearview’s
`
`database. If there is a match, the results identifying individual shoppers based on their facial
`
`geometry are sent back to Macy’s.
`
`The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”)
`
`24. More than ten years ago, the Illinois Legislature recognized the promises and perils of
`
`biometric identification technology. It passed the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS
`
`§ 14/1 et seq., to establish and safeguard Illinois’ residents absolute right to control their
`
`biometric data.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`BIPA regulates both biometric identifiers and biometric information. See, id.
`
`Under the act, a “scan of…face geometry,” is a biometric identifier. Id. at § 14/10.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
`
`27.
`
`Biometric information is any information derived from a biometric identifier, regardless
`
`of how it is captured, stored, or shared. Id.
`
`28.
`
`The positive ID’s that Macy’s received back from Clearview are biometric information,
`
`as they are based on the biometric data Clearview has harvested and are used to identify
`
`individuals.
`
`29.
`
`Once the photo is positively identified based on the biometric information in Clearview’s
`
`possession, the positive identification of those photos become biometric information.
`
`30.
`
`Under the act, a private entity, like Clearview or Macy’s, in possession of either
`
`biometric identifiers or information must develop a written policy, available to the public,
`
`establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the information or
`
`identifiers. Id. § 14/15(a).
`
`31.
`
`Defendant has not provided any policy whatsoever establishing either a retention
`
`schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric data.
`
`32.
`
`Under the act, a private entity like Macy’s is prohibited from collecting, capturing, or
`
`otherwise obtaining a person’s biometric information or identifier unless it first: a) informs the
`
`subject in writing that the information or identifier is being collected or stored; b) informs the
`
`subject in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which the information or
`
`identifier is being collected, stored, or used;, and, c) receives a written release from the subject of
`
`the information or identifier. Id. at § 14/15(b).
`
`33. Macy’s had not at any relevant time informed Plaintiff or any member of the Class
`
`(described below) any of the information required under § 14/15(b). Neither the Plaintiff nor
`
`members of the putative Class executed a written release to Macy’s.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
`
`34.
`
`Under the act, a private entity, like Macy’s, in possession of a person’s biometric
`
`identifier or information may not sell, lease, trade, or otherwise, profit from a person’s
`
`information or identifier. Id. § 14/15(c).
`
`35. Macy’s is actively profiting off of Plaintiff’s and each member of the putative class’
`
`information or identifier through improved security and/or through marketing.
`
`36.
`
`Under the act, a private entity, like Macy’s, in possession of a person’s biometric
`
`identifier or information may not disclose or disseminate the information except in certain
`
`specific situations, such as to comply with a valid warrant or subpoena. Id. at § 14/15(d).
`
`37.
`
` Finally, under the act, a private entity, like Macy’s, in possession of a person’s biometric
`
`identifier or information must store, transmit, and protect the information from disclosure using a
`
`reasonable standard of care for their industry and in a manner that is the same or more protective
`
`than the manner in which the private entity stores, transmits, and protects other confidential and
`
`sensitive information. Id. at § 14/15(e).
`
`38.
`
`BIPA provides a private right of action for violations of the act. For each individual
`
`violation, a person may recover the greater of actual damages or $1,000 for each negligent
`
`violation or $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. Id. at § 14/20. The act also provides
`
`for reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses and any other relief the court deems
`
`appropriate, including injunctive relief. Id.
`
`39. Macy’s knew that to covertly collect personal and private data and biometric information
`
`would violate the privacy rights that BIPA was enacted to protect and that the violations would
`
`cause substantial harm to Illinois residents.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
`
`The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”)
`
`40.
`
`The ICFA proscribes any unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the course of trade or
`
`commerce. 815 ILCS § 505/2.
`
`41.
`
`The ICFA allows any consumer who suffers actual damages from a violation of the act to
`
`bring a private action to recover actual damages or any other relief the court deems proper,
`
`including punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. Id. at §§ 505/10a(a); 505/10a(c).
`
`42. Macy’s does not provide notice that individual’s entering their stores will be
`
`photographed or filmed and that their faces will be run through the illegal Clearview surveillance
`
`database.
`
`43. Macy’s does not notify consumers that Macy’s is acquiring their identity and personal
`
`information from the Clearview database.
`
`44. Macy’s secret collection of photos and videos and positive identifications through
`
`Clearview’s database occurred in the course of commerce or trade.
`
`45. Macy’s secret identification of its shoppers based on their photographs is an unfair
`
`business practice.
`
`46. Macy’s use of the illegal Clearview database without notice to consumers is an unfair
`
`business practice.
`
`47. Macy’s intended for Illinois residents to be unaware of their covert data harvesting and
`
`surveillance operation, knowing that if they were aware, they would take steps to protect their
`
`personal and private data, including by not shopping at or entering any of Macy’s stores.
`
`48.
`
`Once Plaintiff became aware of Macy’s practices and/or Clearview’s database, and the
`
`likelihood she was included in it, she was harmed by the invasion of her privacy, the anxiety and
`
`fear from being included in the surveillance database without her knowledge and consent, and by
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
`
`having to pay for an attorney to file and litigate this suit to have her data removed from the
`
`database.
`
`Plaintiff’s Allegations
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff has been an Illinois resident, residing in the Northern District of Illinois.
`
`At relevant times, Plaintiff posted photos of herself on various publicly-accessible
`
`platforms and websites. Plaintiff posted the photos described in the preceding sentence while
`
`located in the Northern District of Illinois.
`
`51.
`
`At relevant times, others posted photos of Plaintiff on various publicly-accessible
`
`platforms and websites.
`
`52.
`
`At relevant times, photos of Plaintiff have appeared on various publicly-accessible
`
`websites.
`
`53.
`
`At no time did Defendant nor Clearview inform Plaintiff or a legally authorized
`
`representative of Plaintiff in writing that they had collected or obtained Plaintiff’s biometric
`
`identifier or biometric information.
`
`54.
`
`At no time did Defendant nor Clearview inform Plaintiff or a legally authorized
`
`representative of Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which
`
`Plaintiff’s biometric identifier and/or biometric information was being collected, stored and used.
`
`55.
`
`At no time did Plaintiff or her legally authorized representative provide Defendant with
`
`an executed written release allowing them to collect, obtain, or use her biometric identifier
`
`and/or biometric information.
`
`56.
`
`At no time did Plaintiff or her legally authorized representative consent to Defendant
`
`disclosing or redisclosing her biometric identifiers and/or biometric information.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
`
`57.
`
`Based on publicly-available information, Defendant Macy’s obtained biometric
`
`information for over six thousand individual searches – including the biometric identifiers and
`
`information of Plaintiff and Class Members – and subsequently profited from that biometric
`
`information.
`
`58.
`
`Clearview, directly and through its agents, provided customers, such as Defendant
`
`Macy’s, with a service agreement that ensured customers would have unlimited access to its
`
`database. Based on a service agreement, the agreement made no mention of privacy protections,
`
`constitutional safeguards or limitations on information sharing of any kind.
`
`59.
`
`In practice, Macy’s could use the database to identify individual shoppers, whose pictures
`
`they have taken, via biometric searches and then share or use the results in its desired way. As a
`
`result, a single shopper’s biometric search could potentially snowball into a nationwide dragnet.
`
`60. Moreover, any Macy’s employee with access to the surveillance database could use it for
`
`their own personal ends -- for example, to stalk or track an individual.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`Carmine learned of the Clearview surveillance database and its use by Macy’s.
`
`Because Carmine has such a widespread and active social media presence, on
`
`information and belief, Carmine’s biometric information and identifiers and her personal and
`
`private information are contained in Clearview’s database.
`
`63.
`
`Carmine was immediately concerned for her own privacy and safety and the privacy and
`
`safety of her friends and family.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff Carmine has experienced anxiety, stress and other emotional distress based on
`
`her inclusion in the surveillance database and the unauthorized, for-profit acquisition and use of
`
`her biometric information by Defendant Macy’s.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
`
`65.
`
`Carmine has suffered actual damages from the loss of control over her personal
`
`property—her biometric identifiers and information—as a result of the Defendant’s actions.
`
`66.
`
`Due to Defendant’s actions, Carmine’s unique biometric information, which BIPA was
`
`designed to protect, has been compromised and sold for profit. It is unclear whether Carmine will
`
`ever be able to regain control over her biometric information.
`
`67.
`
`Further, and as a result of all Defendant’s actions, Carmine, and her family and friends,
`
`are at a greater risk of stalking, harassment, and identity theft.
`
`Class Allegations
`
`68.
`
`Isela Carmine brings this action on behalf of herself and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on
`
`behalf of a class defined as:
`
`All persons who reside or resided in Illinois whose biometric identifier or information is
`or was contained in the Clearview database at any time and subsequently provided to
`Macy’s.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the Class definition as necessary following
`
`discovery.
`
`70.
`
`On information and belief, the Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. While
`
`the exact number is unknown, Plaintiff believes, based on reputable news sources, that
`
`Defendant has run over 6,000 searches on individuals.
`
`71.
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist and predominate over individual questions and
`
`include:
`
`a.
`
`Whether any of the members consented to their inclusion in the surveillance
`
`database;
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
`
`b.
`
`Whether an individual’s unique biometric identifiers and information, such as
`
`facial geometry, is intangible personal property or whether they have property right in
`
`such identifiers and information;
`
`c.
`
`The extent of any damages incurred by Class members as a result of Defendant’s
`
`actions.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are also typical and co-extensive with the claims of the class because
`
`she and members of the Class have all suffered the same injuries as a result of identical conduct
`
`by the Defendant.
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed Class and she has
`
`retained counsel with experience in consumer law, Illinois law, and federal class actions.
`
`74.
`
`A class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. The Class seeks injunctive
`
`relief applicable to the Class as a whole; due to the complexity of the claims, individual actions
`
`are not likely to be economically feasible; based on the possibility of a very large Class size,
`
`individual litigation would be a burden on the courts and result in delay and inconsistent results.
`
`Relief Sought
`
`COUNT I – DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class seek a declaration:
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`a.
`
`That the Macy’s business practice of using surveillance camera photos to get a
`
`positive identification through Clearview’s database are an ongoing violation of the
`
`Illinois Biometric Privacy Act;
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class seek a court order:
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
`
`a.
`
`to command Macy’s to expunge, delete, and/or remove all information associated
`
`in any way with any member of the Class from their database or any other data
`
`collection;
`
`b.
`
`to restrain Macy’s from using its received positive identification from Clearview’s
`
`scraping or harvesting any information related to any member of the class from any
`
`source at any time now or in the future;
`
`c.
`
`to command Macy’s to submit to and pay for court-supervised monitoring by a
`
`third party of their database and data-collection procedures to ensure compliance with
`
`BIPA and any other order of the court;
`
`COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`Defendant violated BIPA 740 ILCS § 14/15(a) by failing to develop and maintain a
`
`publicly available retention and destruction schedule.
`
`80.
`
`Defendant violated BIPA 740 ILCS § 14/15(b) by obtaining biometric information and
`
`identifiers without making the required disclosures and receiving a written release from each
`
`Class member.
`
`81.
`
`Defendant violated BIPA 740 ILCS § 14/15(c) by selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise
`
`profiting from the Plaintiff’s and Class member’s biometric information and identifiers.
`
`82.
`
`Defendant violated BIPA 740 ILCS § 14/15(d) by disclosing, re-disclosing, and
`
`otherwise disseminating Plaintiff’s and Class members’ biometric identifiers and information
`
`where the individuals did not consent to such disclosure and it was not: a) part of a financial
`
`transaction; b) required by any law; or, c) pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13
`
`83.
`
`As a direct result of these violations, Plaintiff and the Class suffered and continue to
`
`suffer injury and actual, economic, and emotional damages.
`
`84.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class seek:
`
`a.
`
`$1,000 for the Plaintiff and each member of the class for each and every separate
`
`negligent violation;
`
`b.
`
`$5,000 for the Plaintiff and each member of the class for each and every separate
`
`intentional or reckless violation;
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`punitive damages;
`
`costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees;
`
`and, any other relief this court deems proper.
`
`COUNT III – INVASION OF PRIVACY
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`Defendant did not have the right to Plaintiff’s biometric information, and invaded the
`
`privacy of Plaintiff and other Macy’s customers.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`As a result, Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s misconduct.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class seek:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`actual damages;
`
`punitive damages;
`
`costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
`
`any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.
`
`COUNT IV – ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
`
`ACT (ICFA) – UNFAIR ACT
`
`89.
`
`Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14
`
`90.
`
`At all times relevant, Defendant was engaged in trade or commerce in the state: Macy’s
`
`has a paid contract with Clearview who leased, sold, or otherwise provided, for profit, access to
`
`the surveillance database based on pictures that Macy’s provided.
`
`91.
`
`At all times relevant, Plaintiff and members of the class were consumers within the
`
`meaning of ICFA.
`
`92.
`
`Defendant’s practice of using Clearview’s unauthorized scraping or harvesting of
`
`Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ photos, videos, private and personal information, and its
`
`conversion into biometric information and identifiers to add to their surveillance database is an
`
`unfair practice.
`
`93.
`
`This practice has caused substantial injury and harm to Plaintiff and the members of the
`
`Class. It has also forced the Plaintiff to retain counsel to force Macy’s to comply with BIPA and
`
`redress other violations of state law.
`
`94.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class seek:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`actual damages;
`
`punitive damages;
`
`costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
`
`any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.
`
`COUNT V – ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
`
`ACT – DECEPTIVE ACT
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.
`
`At all times relevant, Defendant was engaged in trade or commerce in the state: Macy’s
`
`has a paid contract with Clearview who leased, sold, or otherwise provided, for profit, access to
`
`the surveillance database based on pictures that Macy’s provided.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15
`
`97.
`
`At all times relevant, Plaintiff and members of the class were consumers within the
`
`meaning of ICFA.
`
`98.
`
`Defendant’s practice of using Clearview’s unauthorized scraping or harvesting of
`
`Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ photos, videos, private and personal information, and its
`
`conversion into biometric information and identifiers to add to their surveillance database is a
`
`deceptive act.
`
`99.
`
`This practice has caused substantial injury and harm to Plaintiff and the members of the
`
`Class. It has also forced the Plaintiff to retain counsel to force Macy’s to comply with BIPA and
`
`redress other violations of state law.
`
`100. Plaintiff and the Class seek:
`
`actual damages;
`
`punitive damages;
`
`costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
`
`any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`
`
`Jury Demand
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 5, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Signature Page Follows]
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16
`
`Submitted By:
`/s/ Michael W. Drew
`
`Michael Drew
`Neighborhood Legal LLC
`20 N. Clark Street #3300
`Chicago, IL 60602
`312-967-7220
`mwd@neighborhood-legal.com
`
`
`Michael Wood
`Community Lawyers LLC
`20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Tel (312) 757-1880
`mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`16
`
`