FILED DATE: 24/2020 5:31 PM. 2020L007258 412-Person Jury FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION Sook COUNTY IE JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, JANE DOE #3, 20boL002258 JANE DOE #4, JANE DOE #5, JANE DOE #6, ) Gon JANE DOE #7, JANE DOE #8, JANE DOE #9, ) JANE DOE #10, JANE DOE #11, JANE DOE #12, ) JANE DOE #13, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) No, ) SMITH MAINTENANCE COMPANY, ) ) Jury Demanded Defendant. 3212412020 5:31 PM COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, JANE DOE #3, JANE DOE #4, JANE DOE #5, JANE DOE #6, JANE DOE #7, JANE DOE #8, JANE DOE #9, JANE DOE #10, JANE DOE #11, JANE DOE #12, JANE DOE #13, by and through her attomeys, KUPETS & DE CARO, states the following in support of her complaint at law against Defendant, SMITH MAINTENANCE COMPANY, and state the following in support: eneral Allegations 1, Atall relevant times, Defendant, SMITH MAINTENANCE COMPANY (hereafter “Smith”), was an Illinois corporation doing business in Cook County, Illinois, with its principal office located in Chicago, Ilinois. 2. tall relevant times, Defendant Smith was engaged in providing custodial services to the Sunset Ridge School District 29, and in particular, to Sunset Ridge Elementary 00001FILED DATE: 272472020 6:31 PM. 2020L002258 ‘School (hereafter “Sunset Ridge”) in Northfield, Hlinois. 3. Atall relevant times, the Plaintiffs were a staff member at Sunset Ridge. 4, Atall relevant times, Defendant Smith employed, an individual known to Defendant Smith as, David Garcia-Espinal (hereafter “Garcia-Espinal”) as a custodian at Sunset Ridge Elementary School, 5. Atte time Defendant Smith hired, and placed, Garcia-Espinal at the Sunset Ridge school, Defendant Smith was aware that Garcia-Espinal would be in direct contact with the children attending Sunset Ridge. 6. tthe time Defendant Smith hired, and placed, Garcia-Espinal at the Sunset, Ridge school, Defendant Smith was aware that Garcia-Espinal would be in direct contact with male and female staff at Sunset Ridge. 7. Garcia-Espinal was employed by Defendant Smith as a custodian at Sunset Ridge for approximately three to four years prior to January 14, 2020. 8. On information and belief, on and prior to January 14, 2020, custodian Garcia- Espinal attached a cellular telephone to a trash can that he then placed in several Sunset Ridge staff restrooms. 9. Onand prior to January 14, 2020, the cellular telephone attached to the trash can acted as a recording devices in the staff restrooms capturing unauthorized images of some, or all, of the individuals using the staff restroom, including the plaintiffs. 10. As part of the bidding process with School District 29, Defendant Smith was to provide a statement to District 29 that Defendant Smith employees had received criminal background checks, and that confirmation of the background checks would be on file with the 00002FILED DATE: 22472020 8:31 PM. 2020002258 defendant contractor. 11. Defendant Smith had a duty to perform a adequate and proper background check on David Garcia-Espinal, prior to allowing his to work at Sunset Ridge Elementary School. 12, In 2012, Defendant Smith employee, Garcia-Espinal, was charged with certain crimes in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Criminal Division. 13, In 2012, Defendant Smith employee, Garcia-Espinal, pled guilty to some, or all, of the criminal charges. 14, The criminal charges and the guilty plea would, and/or should, have made Garcia- Espinal unfit for employment at Sunset Ridge elementary school. 15. Defendant Smith knew of Gareii Espinal’s criminal history and chose to ignore it when it allowed Garcia to work at the Sunset Ridge elementary school, 16. Alternatively, Defendant Smith failed to perform a background check on Garcia- Espinal, or performed a negligent background check on Garcia-Espinal, prior to allowing Garcia- Espinal to work at the Sunset Ridge elementary school. Count I - Negligent Hiring and Retention of David Garcia-Espinal 17. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the General Allegations above as their paragraph 17. 18, Atall relevant times, Defendant Smith had a duty to perform a thorough, complete and proper background check on Garcia-Espinal prior to allowing him to work at Sunset Ridge, Notwithstanding said duty, Defendant Smith allowed Garcia-Espinal, its employee, to work at Sunset Ridge for several years, 19. Defendant Smith knew or should have known that Gareia-Espinal had a particular unfitness for the position of elementary school custodian, so as to create a danger of harm to the 00003FILED DATE: 2724/2020 5:31 PM. 2020L002258 plaintiffs, other staff and the students, 20. Defendant Smith knew or should have known that Garcia-Espinal had a particular unfitness at the time of Garcia-Espinal's hiring and/or retention. 21, As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Smith’s actions or omissions, the plaintiffs have suffered severe and personal injuries, and have suffered and will continue to suffer ‘great mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of a normal life. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs, JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, JANE DOE #3, JANE DOE #4, JANE DOE #5, JANE DOE #6, JANE DOE #7, JANE DOE #8, JANE DOE #9, JANE DOE #10, JANE DOE #11, JANE DOE #12, JANE DOE #13, against Defendant Smith in an amount necessary to fully and fairly compensate them individually for all of their loss ;, which substantially exceeds the ‘minimum jurisdictional amount for the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division. Count 11 - Negligent Supervision of David Garcia-Espinal 22. Plaintiffs restate and reallege the General Allegations above as their paragraph 22. 23, Defendant Smith had a duty to supervise Garcia-Espinal, notwithstanding said duty, Defendant Smith negligently supervised Garcia-Espinal, and Defendant Smith was guilty of one or more of the following negligent acts or omission, in that it: a. Allowed Gareia- restrooms; inal to work unsupervised in the Sunset Ridge staff b. Allowed Garcia-Espinal to place a trash can in the staff restrooms for months where the restrooms already had permanent trash cans attached to the walls; cc. Allowed Garcia-Espinal to place a video recording device in the unnecessary trash cans and video the occupants of the restrooms, including the plaintiffs; 00004FILED DATE: 22472020 5:31 PM. 20201002258 4. Failed to inspect and/or monitor Garcia-Espinal’s work and/or work areas; e. Failed to supervise and monitor Garcia-Espinal’s conduct after school when Garcia-Espinal had direct contact with sta and school children; and, f Failed to supervise Garcia-Espinal’s conduct in any meaningful way that would have prevented him from placing a recording device in the staff restrooms. 24, Asadirect and proximate result of Defendant Smith's actions or omissions , the plaintiffs have suffered severe and personal injuries, and have suffered and will continue to suffer great mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of a normal life WHEREFORE, itis respectfully requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs, JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, JANE DOE #3, JANE DOE #4, JANE DOE #5, JANE DOE #6, JANE DOE #7, JANE DOE #8, JANE DOE #9, JANE DOE #10, JANE DOE #11, JANE DOE #12, JANE DOE #13, against Defendant Smith in an amount necessary to fully and fairly compensate them individually for all of their losses, which substantially exceeds the minimum jurisdictional amount for the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division. sl Dennis J. DeCaro Kupets & DeCaro, P.C. (#36453) 77 W. Washington Street, 20 Floor Chicago, Mlinois 60602 312-372-444 ddecaro@kupetsdecaro.com 00005 | | |FILED DATE: 2724/2020 5:31 PM. 2020L002258 FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Beer enced COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION GOOK COUNTY, IL JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, JANE DOE #3, — 2020L002258 JANE DOE #4, JANE DOE #5, JANE DOE #6, ) 8604771 JANE DOE #7, JANE DOE #8, JANE DOE #9, _) JANE DOE #10, JANE DOE #11, JANE DOE #12, ) JANE DOE #13, Plaintiffs, vs, No. SMITH MAINTENANCE COMPANY, Jury Demanded 2/24/2020 5:31 PM Defendant. SUPREME COURT RULE 222 AFFIDAVIT I, Dennis J. DeCaro, attorney for Plaintiffs, JANE DOE #1, JANE DOE #2, JANE DOE #3, JANE DOE #4, JANE DOE #5, JANE DOE #6, JANE DOE #7, JANE DOE #8, JANE DOE #9, JANE DOE #10, JANE DOE #11, JANE DOE #12, JANE DOE #13, and state the following: 1. Lam one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys representing them in this action. 2. The total of money damages sought exceeds $50,000.00 for each of the plaintiffs. Further, affiant saith not. s/ Dennis J. DeCaro Kupets & DeCaro, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, 20 Floor Chicago, Mlinois 60602 Telephone: 312-372-4444 E-mail:ddecaro@kupetsdecaro.com Attorney Number: 36453, 00006