Gerald v. Edelman Fin. Servs., LLC
| Decision Date | 14 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 17 CV 6561,17 CV 6561 |
| Parties | GERALD DIX, Plaintiff, v. EDELMAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Hon. Charles R. Norgle
Plaintiff Gerald Dix ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Defendants Edelman Financial Services, LLC ("Edelman Financial"), Theresa Miller ("Miller"), the Village of Lisle, Lisle Police Officer Rob Sommer ("Sommer"), Village of Lisle Police Officer Sean McKay ("McKay"), Village of Lisle Police Officer Dean Anders ("Anders"), Village of Lisle Police Officer John Doe #3 ("Doe #3"), MJ Suburban, Inc., d/b/a RE/MAX Suburban ("RE/MAX"), the City of Wheaton, City of Wheaton Police Officer Vetaliy Lord ("Lord"), Cheryl L Shurtz ("Shurtz"), Jane Doe #1 ("Doe #1"), Jane Doe #2 ("Doe #2"), and Fire Towing, Inc ("Fire Towing") (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") sets forth nineteen separate claims, including six federal causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims. In its February 28, 2018 Order, the Court dismissed Counts V, VI, VIII, X, XVII, and XVIII of Plaintiff's FAC with prejudice, to the extent that these Counts set forth claims against Edelman Financial, Doe #1, and Doe #2. Now, all remaining Defendants1 have filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.Plaintiff's § 1983 claims (Counts I, IV, XI, XIII, XIV, and XVI) are dismissed with prejudice and the Court relinquishes jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.
Plaintiff's FAC revolves around what he views as a "wrongful eviction" from Miller's home in Lisle, Illinois. Plaintiff and Miller were at some point engaged in a romantic relationship. As part of their relationship, Miller permitted Plaintiff to live in her home in Lisle. However, Plaintiff claims that their relationship turned strictly "platonic" in 2013 as the result of a "botched elective cosmetic surgical procedure" that left Miller in poor health. FAC ¶ 27. Plaintiff also claims that Miller was his landlord, but he provides no allegations regarding a written lease agreement or rent payments. Id. ¶ 21. Rather, he vaguely mentions that he shared living expenses with Miller and that he performed some household chores.
Plaintiff alleges Miller began asking him to make greater financial contributions after she lost her job as a pharmacist in May of 2017. According to Plaintiff, not only did Miller harass him for money, but she also repeatedly attempted to steal his paychecks and made several unauthorized purchases on his credit card. Plaintiff claims that Miller's actions were the result of advice she received from her financial advisor, Doe #1, an unknown agent of Edelman Financial. Doe #1 allegedly refused to release any of Miller's funds, and instead instructed her to "steal financial funds from the Plaintiff" and "convince the Plaintiff that he should obtain full-time employment" in order to replace her lost income. Id. ¶¶ 36, 45.
By way of background, Plaintiff states that at all time relevant most of his income was derived from his work as a software engineer. However, in addition, he brazenly admits that he has routinely engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.2 Id. ¶¶ 119, 120 n. 4, 121. Specifically, hestates that he lost "billable hours" as the result of his "wrongful eviction" because he was unable to complete a rehearing petition "on behalf of his brother" that was to be filed by August 30, 2017, in the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District.3 Id. ¶¶ 119-121 (emphasis added). According to Plaintiff, "because it is common for licensed attorneys to commit fraud on the courts, [he] has too often been called upon to commence and maintain legal action on behalf of himself and others against malefactors." Id. ¶ 120 n. 4.
In August of 2017, Miller decided to sell her home in Lisle and hired Shurtz, as an agent of RE/MAX, to facilitate the sale. Shurtz allegedly offered to sell Miller's home on the condition that Miller agreed to "evict" Plaintiff and have the house staged for listing within a week. Miller allegedly agreed to "evict" Plaintiff, but only after requiring him to do the bulk of the packing and moving necessary to stage Miller's home. Over the course of five pages in the FAC, Plaintiff describes in excruciating detail how Miller's home was allegedly in a state of disrepair and excessively cluttered. Plaintiff makes confusing references to various alleged building code violations and blames the cluttered state of the home on Miller's alleged "compulsive buying disorder." FAC ¶ 69.
Plaintiff claims that on August 22, 2017, he was somehow required to help stage Miller's home along with Miller's friend Paula and Doe #2, another unknown agent of Edelman Financial. Plaintiff alleges that he eventually became fed up with the "ineptness" of Paula and Doe #2 and refused to help any further with staging Miller's home. Before he left, however, Plaintiff claims that he told Miller and Doe #2 to leave his personal property undisturbed while they continued the staging process.
Plaintiff alleges that he returned home from work on August 23, 2017, to find his personal property packed in boxes and comingled with Miller's property. Plaintiff claims that he had no intention of moving out of Miller's home—despite knowing that she was planning on selling her home—so he started to unpack his property. According to Plaintiff, Miller grabbed his arm to stop him from unpacking and a heated dispute between Plaintiff and Miller followed. During the dispute, Plaintiff informed Miller that "he wasn't going to help her stage the Lisle home because she and her helpers disturbed [his] possessions in defiance of [his] specific instructions." FAC ¶ 103. Miller allegedly responded by informing Plaintiff of her secret agreement with Shurtz "to have Plaintiff help stage the Lisle home and then evict Plaintiff the upcoming Sunday night, August 27, 2017." Id. ¶ 104.
Plaintiff alleges that following the dispute, Miller called the Lisle police to "evict" Plaintiff because he refused to help stage her home. Shortly thereafter, four or five unknown Lisle police officers arrived at Miller's home in response to her call. The situation was seemingly resolved, as the officers eventually left and Plaintiff reentered Miller's home.
Plaintiff alleges that on August 24, 2017, he attempted to move several more boxes of personal property into Miller's home, which precipitated another dispute with Miller. Miller again called the Lisle Police and three officers responded to her call: Sargent Dempsy, Officer Sommer, and Officer McKay. Plaintiff claims that upon their arrival, Sommer and McKay spoke with Miller and decided to "evict" Plaintiff.
Sommer and McKay allegedly informed Plaintiff that he was not permitted to enter Miller's home and instructed Miller and Doe #2 to remove Plaintiff's personal property from the home and place it on the driveway. Plaintiff alleges that Sommer prevented him from reentering Miller's home while Miller and Doe #2 began moving his personal property to the driveway. Plaintiff claims he became upset with the manner in which Miller and Doe #2 were moving his possessions and he expressed his frustration by calling Doe #2 "stupid." FAC ¶ 128. Sommer allegedly instructedPlaintiff that "he could not call Doe #2 stupid," and that "if he called anyone else stupid, a dingbat, ding-a-ling, idiot or 'stupid bitch' that [he] would arrest Plaintiff for disorderly conduct." Id. ¶ 129-130.
While Sommer and McKay were still at Miller's home, Plaintiff left to rent a moving truck to carry away his personal property. Plaintiff claims that Sommer and McKay agreed to protect Plaintiff's personal property while he rented the moving truck. Plaintiff alleges that despite their promise to "guard" his belongings, some of the boxes containing his personal property were missing when he returned with the moving truck. Plaintiff further alleges that he was eventually allowed to reenter Miller's home to gather his personal property, but Sommer and McKay prevented him from entering the dining room, second floor, and third floor, where he believed some of his property had been moved by Miller and Doe #2. Plaintiff also claims that Sommer forced him to turn over his keys to Miller's home under protest and that Sommer and McKay informed him that he would be arrested if he returned to Miller's home for any reason besides retrieving his personal property or his vehicle, which Plaintiff left parked in Miller's driveway.
Subsequent to what Plaintiff calls his "wrongful eviction," he demanded that Miller and the Village of Lisle ship him his personal property that he claims was left behind at Miller's home. Plaintiff contends that Miller and the Village of Lisle refused to ship him his property and that he was prevented from retrieving his vehicle that he left parked in Miller's driveway. However, Plaintiff fails to plead how he was prevented or who was responsible for stopping him from removing his vehicle from Miller's driveway—e.g. he does not indicate that his keys to his vehicle were taken from him, or that he attempted to retrieve his vehicle, but was stopped by a Lisle police officer. Rather. Plaintiff admits earlier in his FAC that Sommer and McKay informed him that he could return to Miller's home to collect his personal property and his vehicle. It is not disputed that Plaintiff never removed his vehicle from Miller's driveway.
On September 6, 2017, nearly two weeks after Plaintiff left Miller's home, he allegedly spoke with Miller and informed her of his intent file the instant lawsuit. Miller allegedly responded by stating "I am going to kill you if you file that complaint." FAC ¶ 162. Plaintiff claims that this comment caused him to fear for his safety, but that the Lisle Police refused to assist him...
To continue reading
Request your trial