Andrew Hays, Sarah E. Buck Complaint

8/11/2019 Andrew Hays, Sarah E. Buck Complaint

1/21


2/21

Mar% Stoller &'0 3y this a!tion, Christopher Stoller see%s, inter alia, de!laratory relief,

!o"pensatory da"ages, punitie da"ages, an in2un!tion and and attorney4s fees and

!osts0

PARTIES

0 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

shell7 !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, $(th4loor, Chica0o, 7llinois -&-&$. 'ttorneys *ndre- 8ays, indiidually,


3/21

*ntonia 8ays ndiidually and Sarah 3u!%, indiidually0

5b0 9or purposes of this Co"plaint for n2un!tie 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,

representaties and:or other agents0

VENUE

60 ;enue is proper pursuant to


4/21

years due to sui!ide on @une , >>//, Christopher$s youngest son #aid,

A, died due to an oer dose of drugs on *ugust 6, >//0 Christopher$s lady friend -as %illed in

a train a!!ident on @uly &th>//0

/>0 eo Stoller 6?, brother of Christopher, filed a Petition for Buardianship of

Christopher Stoller$s estate and person in >>A in a%e County llinois >AP A5/> a guardian at itie" -as *ppointed for Christopher Stoller E=hi:it (0 Christopher Stoller

-as de!lared totally -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 >, >//

-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 '> >/'0/

((% Christopher Stoller -as in!ar!erated fro" 4"#5"r2 &'tho$ &''- 5#ti A565st >',

&'(>0 On O1to:er >'th, &'(>Christopher Stoller -as Ordered restored to !o"peten!y0

E=hi:it &%(

/0 On or about No0 //< 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 inest the" for his dad0 Mar% told his dad that he !ould

hae his "oney ba!% any ti"e he as%ed for it an that Mar% -ould not spend it on

anything other than to inest it for his father0 Christopher sent Mar% *+,'''

E=hi:it &."!%

/'0 n #e!e"ber of >/' Christopher !alled Mar% Stoller and reDuested that his son

/ E=hi:it &%(

Christopher Stoller Case NoNo. 117330 is on Appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.

&


5/21

send hi" a !opy of the bro%erage a!!ount sho-ing the "utual fund a!!ount0

Mar% said if Christopher -ould hae 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 '/, >/' Christopher Stoller !alled his son

Mar% and reDuested his *+,'''%''to be i""ediately returned0 Mar% said that

Christopher

Stoller -astes his "oney, and that he !ould inest the @*+,''' in bro%erage

a!!ount and that by the ti"e he -ould be ready to retire he !ould hae

@+','''%'' 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 inest 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, Bo fu!% yourself7 Causing Christopher Stoller serer e"otional

stress0 On @anuary &

th

>/& 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 6>> 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 shell7 !orporation #ef!on0

/50 Mar% !alled his father, Christopher Stoller on or about @anuary 5, >/& and said

that he -ould return his father$s retire"ent "oney of 6>>, and not to !all

hi" until @anuary /6, >/&07

5


6/21

/60 Christopher !alled hi" on @anuary /5, >/&0 Mar% refused to ans-er his phone

after @anuary /6, >/&0

//&0 Mar% Stoller refused to respond0EHI/& 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 the 5 th*"end"ent07

/A0 0 On @anuary /, >/& Christopher Stoller filed a !o"plaint -ith the llinois

Se!urities #epart"ent Mr. Frank LoscuitoE=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

>0 On @anuary , >/& Christopher Stoller filed a "ail fraud !o"plaint -ith the

F0S0 Postal nspe!tion Seri!e E=hi:it )% Christopher Stoller also filed a

!o"plaint -ith the llinois *ttorney Beneral$s Offi!e E=hi:it )"%

/0 Mar% Stoller has refused to return the said retire"ent funds of @*+,'''%''

!ausing the plaintiff serer e"otional stress and finan!ial hardship0 Christopher

has sin!e been for!ed to "oe out of his retire"ent !o"pleG -hi!h proided

"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 proided0 Christopher does

not hae enough "oney to pay for his liingeGpenses, food and !urrent bills

6


7/21

be!ause of the in2ury !aused by his son and the defendants0

0 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 6>> fro" his

father under false pretense, !lai"ing that he -ould inest his father$s 6>> -hile had

no intention to do so0 Con!o!ted a false affir"atie defense infor"ing Mar% not to

-orry that he !ould !lai" that the "onies that his father gae hi" to inest -as really a

gift7 an not to -orry that they -ould hand this "atter, 2ust li%e they did the preious

"atter for hi" in a%e County -hen Mar% had preiously sued his father su!!essfully0

When in fa!t Mar%$s la-yers %ne- that the said 6>> -as not a gift be!ause the

Plaintiff had filed & !ri"inal !o"plaints against his son, Mar% for ta%ing the 6>>0>>0

t -as !lear that Mar% defrauded his father out of 6>> 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.$%%.23'. #n Januar(

o) 24 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.

'0 Mar% Stoller -as in possession of &> pie!es of Capodi"onte 9igurines that

belonged to Christopher Stoller, -hi!h are alued oer >,>>>, 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 />,>>>0


8/21

COUNT ONE

AND AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

.DECLARATORY 4UD7MENT +> ILCS B&+'(!

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

(a)0 1he allegations in Paragraphs / through >(a) aboe are in!orporated by referen!e

in this Count One as if fully restated herein0

'0 On or about No0 //' Mar% falsely represented that if his father, Christopher

gae hi" his retire"ent funds of 6>> 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 inest"ent of Christopher$s retire"ent funds that

Christopher turn all of those funds oer to Mar%0

&0 Mar% represented that he had the %no-ledge, s%ill and the ability to inest"ent

Christopher$s retire"ent funds in the highest returning inest"ent0

50 #uring the negotiations Mar% &', had an unfair bargaining po-er oer his

disabled father, Christopher 65, -ho is disabled, suffers fro" depression and 2ust

got out of 2ail after & H years0

60 #uring the negotiations in Noe"ber of >/', 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 >I return on Christopher$s "oney0


9/21

Mar% if !ertain indu!e"ents, pro"ises and other representations had not been

"ade by Mar%0

?0 W8EE9OE Plaintiffs see% re!oery of a!tual and !o"pensatory da"agesJ

punitie 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 A aboe are in!orporated by referen!e

in this Count t-o as if fully restated herein0

'/0 On or about No //', defendants falsely and fraudulently represented to the

plaintiff that Mar% -ould ta%e Christopher$s retire"ent funds 6>>, and put

the" in a "utual fund that -ould gie a return of >I0

'0 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 inest those funds

for his father but to %eep the "oney for hi"self and inest 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!eie 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


10/21

'&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 belieed 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,

hae dis!oered defendant$s se!ret intention0) n relian!e on these

representations, plaintiff -as indu!ed to and did send his son 6>>0 8ad

plaintiff %no-n the a!tual fa!ts, Plaintiff -ould not hae ta%en su!h a!tion,

if plaintiff had %no-n of the a!tual intention of defendant, plaintiff -ould

not hae 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 hereinalleged, plaintiff -as defrauded by reason of -hi!h plaintiff has been da"aged in the su" of6>>0>>0

0 n doing the a!ts herein alleged, defendant a!ted -ith oppression, fraud, and "ali!e, andplaintiff is entitled to punitie da"ages in the su" of />>,>>>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 />>,>>>0>>J0 9or punitie da"ages in the su" of />>,>>0>>J

/>


11/21

'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 aboe are

in!orporated by referen!e in this Count t-o as if fully

restated herein0

'60 Christopher Stoller had 6>> of retire"ent funds0

'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 />>,>>>0>>0

a0 9or punitie da"ages in the su" of />>,>>0>>J

b0 9or !osts of suit in!urred hereinJ and reasonable

attorney$s fees0

//


12/21

!0 9or su!h other and further relief as the !ourt "ay

dee" proper0

COUNT FOUR

AND AS FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

., >/'0

&&0 Christopher deliered and:or transferred the eG!lusie possession

of the said property of the bailor to the bailee0

&50 Mar%, the bailee a!!eptan!e of eG!lusie 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!lusie

possession and !ontrol of these ite"s fro" @anuary /A, >>? 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 !aseof bail"ent (/) an agree"ent by the bailor to transfer or delier and the bailee to a!!ept eG!lusiepossession of the property of the the goods for a spe!ified purposeJ () the a!tual deliery or transfer ofeG!lusie possession of the property of the bailor to the baileeJ and (a!!eptan!e of eG!lusie possessionby the bailee0 Williams v. U.S.supra (sin!e the da"age:theft see"s to hae allegedly o!!urred at theO48ara air port, it follo-s that llinois la- applies0

/


13/21

the presen!e0

&60 Christopher Stoller "ade a de"and on or about Septe"ber /5,

>/& for Mar% Stoller to return the said ite"s and he has refused0

&>,>>>0

0 9or punitie da"ages in the su" of />>,>>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 5CA#SE O' ACTION 'OR INTENTIONAL IN'LICTION O' EMOTIONAL

STRESS

&'. The !!etio"s i" Prrhs % throuh &' *o+e re i"cororte *-

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, ll0 #


14/21

Plaintiff, ta%ing the entire retire"ent funds, 6>> fro" his father

Christopher Stoller 65, leaing 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 #ais, 66=ll0 # ?5, A>0 eaing the

father, penniless, unable to buy his "onthly "edi!ations and gro!eries for

the "onth0(/A


15/21

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 />>,>>>0>>J



attorney$s fees0


proper0

*nd a preli"inary in2un!tion against the !he!%ing a!!ounts

and any and all inest"ent a!!ounts of the defendants,

a!!ounts re!eiable, of disbursing any funds up to an

in!luding />>,>>>0>>, during the penden!y of this

litigation0

CO#NT %CA#SE O' ACTION 'OR WILL'#L AND WANTON MISCOND#CT

NELIENCE5

1&. The !!etio"s i" Prrhs % throuh 1/ *o+e re i"cororte *-

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 definesnegligen!e as !ondu!t that falls belo- the standard established by la- for the prote!tion of otheragainst unreasonable ris% of har"07 Negligen!e generally !onsists of fie ele"ents, in!luding thefollo-ing. (/) a duty of !are o-ed by the defendant to the plaintiffJ (e) a brea!h of that dutyJ (')ana!tual !ausal !onne!tion bet-een the defendant$s !ondu!t and the resulting har"J(&)proGi"ate!ause, -hi!h relates to -hether the har" -as foreseeableJ and (5) da"ages resulting fro" thedefendant$s !ondu!t0

/5


16/21

Christopher had a spe!ifi! duty to his father to safeguard his personal

property, the 6>>, the Capodi"onte 9igures, Paintings his !lothing0

560 1he #efendant brea!hed that that duty, -hen he failed to return

to Plaintiff his 6>> and the Capodi"onte 9igures, Paintings his

!lothing0

5>,>>>0>>J



attorney$s fees0


proper0



/6


17/21



litigation0

AS 'OR A SE*ENT+ CA#SE O' ACTION (#N,#STENRIC+MENT%)

1'. The !!etio"s i" Prrhs % throuh 12 *o+e re i"cororte *-


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 6>>0

6/0 1he #efendant, the &' year old son of the the Plaintiff Christopher

Stoller, 65, too% his entire retire"ent funds of 6>> at the eGpense of

the Plaintiff, leaing hi" destitute0

60 t is against eDuity and good !ons!ien!e to per"it the other party

to retain the 6>> fro" the #efendant, that -hi!h is sought to

be re!oered0

6'0 Mar% Stoller, &', ta%ing of the entire retire"ent funds fro" his

father, Christopher Stoller was si*%l( un)air and not riht.

6What Do You Need To Prove To Win An Unjust Enrichment Claim?

1nust enrich*ent is an o-liation that the law creates even without an( contract or

aree*ent. #n order )or a %lainti to %revail on a clai* o) unust enrich*ent, that %art(

is reuired to %rove that "' the other %art( was enriched, "2' at that %art(5s e6%ense,

and "3' that it is aainst euit( and ood conscience to %er*it the other %art( to retain

what is souht to -e recovered.

/


18/21

WHEREFORE,plaintiffs pray for 2udg"ent against defendant and ea!hof the", per !ount as follo-s, per !ourt.




attorney$s fees0


proper0





litigation0

/?


19/21

AS 'OR A EI+T CA#SE O' ACTION (Aii. a. ai.a. 4.!i6a)7

0&. The !!etio"s i" Prrhs % throuh 0/ *o+e re i"cororte *-


01. Mr5 Sto!!er &/, o8e ut- to his fther, the P!i"tiff, Christoher

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,

Christoher 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- "


20/21

" h+e co"sire 8ith hi42.

7$. The P!i"tiff Christoher Sto!!er hs suffere 4es.

WHEREFORE,plaintiffs pray for 2udg"ent against defendant,indiidually, per !ount as follo-s, per !ourt.




attorney$s fees0


proper0





litigation0

Wayne Rhine,Suite

500

309 W. Washington

Chicago, Illinois

? C; CONSP*C *N# CONCE1 O9 *C1ONCon!ert of a!tion eGists -hen t-o or "ore persons perfor" -rongful a!tspursuant to a !o""on design or one person gies substantial assistan!e to another%no-ing that the others !ondu!t !onstitutes a brea!h of legal duty0 Ciil !onspira!yinoles 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 byla-ful "eans0 S"ith 0 Eli illy Co0, /'< ll0 d (/AA>)J ;an!e 0 Chandler, '/ ll0*pp0 'd


21/21

60606 /%#=12' 12/#

/

Andrew Hays, Sarah E. Buck Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Andrew Hays, Sarah E. Buck Complaint