012 Amended Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

PAMELA HUTUL, ) COMPLAINT ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 12-cv-01811 ) DANIEL MAHER, ) ) Defendant. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Plaintiff PAMELA HUTUL (“Plaintiff”), by and through her

attorneys, Mudd Law Offices, and complains of the Defendant DANIEL MAHER

(“Defendant”), upon personal information as to her own activities and upon information and

belief as to the activities of others and all other matters, and states as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is an action for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”),

defamation per se, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage arising from the

Defendant’s wrongful conduct in publishing fraudulent reviews of the Plaintiff online in which

the Defendant defames and disparages the Plaintiff and her professional services.

2. By this action, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and

injunctive relief.

PARTIES

3. PAMELA HUTUL is a citizen of the State of Illinois and a resident of Cook

County, Illinois.

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 12 Filed: 06/18/12 of 26 PageID #:87

2

4. DANIEL MAHER is, upon information and belief, a citizen of the State of

Wisconsin.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiff’s federal statutory

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the subject

matter of Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

6. Alternatively, the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims based upon the

diversity of the Parties and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois, and

the Defendant is a citizen of Wisconsin.

7. There is an actual case or controversy that has arisen between the Plaintiff and the

Defendant (“Parties”) in an amount exceeding $75,000.00.

8. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. Further, the

Defendant directed his conduct toward the Plaintiff in this district.

9. The Defendant has engaged in intentional conduct with actual malice that has

harmed the Plaintiff.

10. The Plaintiff has been injured by the Defendant’s conduct and has suffered

damages resulting therefrom.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Background on Parties

11. This action involves the Defendant’s efforts to harm the Plaintiff and to defame,

discredit, disparage, and damage the Plaintiff’s professional and business reputations.

12. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is an attorney who practices family law.


3

13. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has built a reputation for providing high quality legal

representation to clients in Cook County and neighboring counties.

14. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has acted as an expert witness.

15. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has appeared in the press as a recognized expert in

magazines and newspapers as well as on CNBC and WGN.

16. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has been a speaker at numerous Continuing Legal

Education (“CLE”) conferences.

17. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has served as a trained mediator.

18. In representing her family law clients, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has invested

significant time in preventing the disputes from becoming inflamed.

19. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is well recognized in the Chicagoland legal community for

her quality services and legal ability.

20. Defendant Daniel Maher is an individual who, in posting fraudulent reviews of

the Plaintiff on several websites, impersonated a colleague of the Plaintiff, a former colleague of

the Plaintiff, and other individuals.

Defamatory Statements

21. On February 20, 2011, the Defendant posted statements about the Plaintiff on the

website lawyerratingz.com at the webpage

http://www.lawyerratingz.com/ratings/1032208/Lawyer-Pamela-Hutul.html (“February 20, 2011

Statements”).

22. In posting the February 20, 2011 Statements on lawyerratingz.com, the Defendant

falsely stated that the Plaintiff sought to make her clients “pay the most possible for a divorce.”

23. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not seek to have her clients pay the most for a


4

divorce.

24. On April 24, 2011, the Defendant posted statements about the Plaintiff on the

website scaminformer.com at the webpage http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/pamela-

hutul-pamela-hutul-davis-friedman-law-unethical-attorney-c24363.html (“April 24, 2011

Statements”).

25. In posting the April 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, the Defendant

falsely impersonated an individual in the legal community.


falsely impersonated an individual who purportedly had observed the Plaintiff’s practice of law.


falsely stated that the Plaintiff was unethical.

28. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not unethical.


falsely stated that the Plaintiff would “lengthen the litigation proceedings and increase her fees.”

30. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally lengthen litigation proceedings for

purposes of increasing her fees.


falsely stated that the Plaintiff was not a substantive attorney.

32. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is a recognized expert in the areas of family law.


falsely stated that the Plaintiff had been forced out of her prior firm for nepotism.

34. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul was not forced out of her prior firm for nepotism.



5

website ripoffreport.com at the webpage http://www.ripoffreport.com/attorneys-legal-

services/pamela-hutul/pamela-hutul-davis-friedman-l-a3f79.htm (April 25, 2011 Statements).

36. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant used the pseudonym

“Paul.”

37. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant identified himself as

being from Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

38. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant impersonated an

individual in the legal field.

39. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant impersonated an

individual who has observed Plaintiff Pamela Hutul’s practice of law.

40. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant stated that “[p]otential

clients of Ms. Hutul should be aware.” The Defendant made additional statements specifically

discouraging potential clients from doing business with Plaintiff Pamela Hutul.

41. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant falsely stated that

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul was unethical.


43. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant falsely stated that

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul will “create as much acrimony in a divorce as possible to lengthen the

litigation proceedings and increase her fees.”

44. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not create as much acrimony in a divorce as possible

to lengthen the litigation proceedings and increase her fees.

45. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant also falsely

characterizing Plaintiff Pamela Hutul as unprofessional and as being only interested in her own


6

fees to the detriment of her clients. The Defendant also falsely stated that she engages in

unnecessary and ineffective legal tactics.

46. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is professional and is not only interested in her own fees.

She does not engage in unnecessary and ineffective legal tactics.

47. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant also falsely stated that

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has a poor reputation in the Chicago legal community as not being a

“substantive attorney.”

48. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not have a poor reputation in the Chicago legal

community. Additionally, she is a recognized expert in family law.

49. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, the Defendant also stated:

When deciding on an attorney, potential clients should be aware that legal review sites such as avvo.com are regularly monitored by attorneys. The reviews there are adjusted and edited by the attorneys in question and are therefore not necessarily accurate. So gather information about an attorney from multiple sources before making a decision.

50. From this point, the Defendant set out to publish false statements about Plaintiff

Pamela Hutul on numerous websites.



hutul-pamela-hutul-davis-friedman-law-firm-family-law-attorney-c22857.html (April 30, 2011

Statements).


falsely claimed to be a colleague of the Plaintiff employed by the Plaintiff’s employer.


impersonated an individual employed with the Plaintiff’s employer.


7


affirmed prior statements about the Plaintiff.


falsely stated that the Plaintiff is dishonest.

56. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not dishonest.


falsely stated that the Plaintiff would “do anything possible to make a divorce lengthy and

expensive.”

58. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally cause a divorce proceeding to

unnecessarily continue for purposes of increasing her fees and/or the expense of the litigation.

59. On May 24, 2011, the Defendant posted statements about the Plaintiff on the


hutul-pamela-hutul-stay-away-unethical-money-hungry-mean-c29245.html (“May 24, 2011

Statements”).

60. In posting the May 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, the Defendant

again falsely stated the Plaintiff was unethical.

61. Again, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not unethical.

62. In posting the May 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, the Defendant

again falsely stated the Plaintiff seeks to extend litigation so that she can earn more.

63. Again, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally lengthen litigation

proceedings for purposes of increasing her fees.


website devreviews.com at the webpage http://www.devreviews.com/pam-hutul-l25979 (“May


8

30, 2011 Statements”).

65. In posting the May 30, 2011 Statements on devreviews.com, the Defendant

impersonated a colleague of the Plaintiff by claiming to have seen her practice of law.


falsely characterized the Plaintiff as a “shyster.”

67. The term “shyster” has a defamatory meaning of acting in a “disreputable,

unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, politics or business.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyster (last visited March 11, 2012).

68. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not act in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous

way. She is not disreputable, unethical or unscrupulous.


falsely stated that the Plaintiff will do “everything she can to keep the fighting going to increase

her fees.”

70. Again, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally lengthen litigation



falsely stated that the Plaintiff’s legal knowledge is “sub-par”.

72. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul’s legal knowledge in family law is not sub-par.


falsely stated that the Plaintiff is “poorly respected in the legal community.”

74. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not poorly respected in the legal community.


instructed individuals to stay away from the Plaintiff “if you want to … reach a good outcome.”


9


website ripoffreport.com at the webpage http://www.ripoffreport.com/lawyers/pam-hutul/pam-

hutul-shyster-attorney-in-c6da3.htm (“May 31, 2011 Statements”).

77. In posting the May 31, 2011 Statements on ripoffreports.com, the Defendant

essentially repeated the statements made on May 30, 2011 on the website devreviews.com.


website yelp.com at the webpage

http://www.yelp.com/filtered_reviews/pahl39Vdgrds4ReFTbkYpw?fsid=wurTidZZ4_m7xbbtnC

346w (“First Yelp Statements”).

79. In posting the First Yelp Statements on yelp.com, the Defendant impersonated an

individual who used to work with the Plaintiff.

80. In posting the First Yelp Statements on yelp.com, the Defendant essentially

repeated the statements made on May 30, 2011 on the website devreviews.com.

81. On May 31, 2011, the Defendant posted additional statements about the Plaintiff

on the website yelp.com accessible at the webpage

http://www.yelp.com/user_details?userid=AMiClblzw2Aw_IpwAvtTlw (“Second Yelp

Statements”).

82. In posting the Second Yelp Statements on yelp.com, the Defendant essentially

posted a shortened version of the statements made on May 30, 2011 on the website

devreviews.com.

83. On June 2, 2011, the Defendant posted statements about the Plaintiff on the

website pissedconsumer.com at the webpage http://pam-hutul.pissedconsumer.com/pam-hutul-

20110602240917.html (“June 2, 2011 Statements”).


10

84. In posting the June 2, 2011 Statements on pissedconsumer.com, the Defendant

used the pseudonym “Danm.”


impersonated an individual who had observed the Plaintiff’s practice of law.


impersonated an individual in the legal community.


essentially repeated the same post made on scaminformer.com on April 24, 2011.


expressly warned potential clients of the Plaintiff to “beware.”


again falsely stated that the Plaintiff engaged in unethical behavior.

90. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has not engaged in unethical behavior.


again stated that the Plaintiff will engage in conduct solely to increase her fees.

92. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul will not engage in conduct in representing her clients and

managing her clients’ cases solely to increase her fees.

93. On December 27, 2011, the Defendant posted statements about the Plaintiff on the

website lawyerratingz.com at the webpage

http://www.lawyerratingz.com/ratings/1032208/Lawyer-Pamela-Hutul.html (“December 27,

2011 Statements”).

94. In posting the December 27, 2011 Statements on lawyerratingz.com, the

Defendant again falsely stated that the Plaintiff “does anything possible to make the most money


11

from a case.”

95. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not do anything possible to personally make the most

money from a case.


Defendant again falsely stated that the Plaintiff had been forced out of her prior firm for

nepotism.

97. Again, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul was not forced out of her prior firm for nepotism.


Defendant falsely stated that the Plaintiff “abuses her clients.”

99. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not abuse her clients.


Defendant falsely stated that “I’ve heard her discuss how much money a family has so she can

see how much to charge the client.”


Defendant impersonated a colleague of the Plaintiff by claiming to have seen her practice of law.

However, as anyone who practices family law would know, an attorney needs to be aware of a

client assets to effectively represent the client.


Defendant stated “[u]se her at your own risk,” specifically discouraging potential clients from

doing business with Plaintiff Pamela Hutul.

103. The foregoing statements made by the Defendant shall hereinafter be collectively

referred to as the “False and Defamatory Statements.”


12

Public Perception

104. The False and Defamatory Statements convey the meaning that Plaintiff is

unethical.

105. The Plaintiff is not unethical.

106. The False and Defamatory Statements convey that the Plaintiff would unfairly bill

her clients for her own financial gain.

107. The Plaintiff would not unfairly bill her clients for her own financial gain.

108. The False and Defamatory Statements convey that the Plaintiff is dishonest in the

practice of law.

109. The Plaintiff is not dishonest in the practice of law.

110. The False and Defamatory Statements convey that the Plaintiff is unable to

responsibly carry out her fiduciary duties and obligations to her clients, the courts, her

colleagues, and the community.

111. The Plaintiff is able to responsibly carry out her fiduciary duties and obligations

to her clients, the courts, her colleagues, and the community.

112. The False and Defamatory Statements convey that the Plaintiff is “subpar” and

poorly respected in the legal community.

113. The Plaintiff is not a “subpar” attorney and is not poorly respected in the legal

community.

114. Since the publication of the False and Defamatory Statements, any individual

reading the reviews might believe that the Plaintiff lacks the integrity or ability to perform in the

discharge of her duties in her employment.

115. Since the publication of the False and Defamatory Statements, any individual


13

reading the reviews might believe that the Plaintiff lacks ability in her trade, profession, and

business.

116. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul remains concerned that individuals and organizations,

including prospective clients, will choose not to utilize her services based upon the False and

Defamatory Statements.

Intent and Actual Malice

117. The Defendant acted with intent and actual malice because he intended to harm

the Plaintiff.

118. The Defendant acted with the intent to tortiously interfere with the Plaintiff’s

business interests by dissuading prospective parties, who read the reviews, from becoming

Plaintiff’s clients.


14

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT ONE

AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030)

119. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 118

above in this First Count as though fully set forth herein.

120. In making the False and Defamatory Statements, the Defendant impersonated

individuals in the legal profession who had worked with and/or witnessed Plaintiff Pamela

Hutul’s practice of law.

121. By impersonating an individual, the Defendant provided false information in

creating accounts at the various websites on which he posted content.

122. By impersonating an individual, the Defendant posted fraudulent reviews.

123. The provision of false information and fraudulent reviews breaches the terms of

use for the websites on which he posted content.

124. By breaching the terms of use for the websites on which he posted content, the

Defendant obtained authorized access or exceeded his authorized access to the computers of the

websites on which he posted content.

125. The Defendant knowingly and with an intent to commit fraud obtained

unauthorized access or exceeded his authorized access to the computer(s), server(s) and/or other

computing devices of the various websites on which he impersonated individuals and posted

fraudulent reviews for purposes of furthering his fraud upon Plaintiff.

126. The Defendant intended to commit fraud against Plaintiff by representing himself

as a former client and/or colleague of the Plaintiff.


15

127. The Defendant intended to harm the Plaintiff personally.

128. The Defendant’s conduct violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C.

§ 1030(a)(4).

129. The Plaintiff has suffered loss aggregating in more than $5,000 including, but not

limited to, costs of responding to the violations in the form of attorney’s fees.

130. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul prays as follows:

A. That the Court award her economic damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)

against the Defendant;

B. That the Court provide her injunctive relief in the form of an order:

i. permanently enjoining the Defendant from impersonating himself as a

colleague and/or former client of the Plaintiff; and,

ii. permanently enjoining the Defendant from impersonating the Plaintiff; and,

C. That the Court award such other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled or as

justice may require.

COUNT TWO

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

DEFAMATION PER SE OF PLAINTIFF


above in this Second Count as though fully set forth herein.

132. The Defendant falsely stated that Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is unethical.


134. The Defendant falsely stated that Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is dishonest.

135. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not dishonest.


16

136. The Defendant falsely stated that the Plaintiff had been forced out of her prior

firm for nepotism.

137. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul was not forced out of her prior firm for nepotism.

138. The Defendant falsely stated that the Plaintiff intentionally lengthens litigation


139. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally lengthen litigation proceedings for

purposes of increasing her fees.

140. The Defendant falsely characterized the Plaintiff as a “shyster.”

141. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not a “shyster” and does not act in a disreputable,

unethical, or unscrupulous way. She is not disreputable, unethical or unscrupulous.

142. The Defendant falsely characterized Plaintiff’s legal knowledge as sub-par.

143. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul’s legal knowledge in family law is not sub-par.

144. The Defendant falsely stated that the Plaintiff is “poorly respected in the legal

community.”

145. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not poorly respected in the legal community.

146. The Defendant published the False and Defamatory Statements concerning

Plaintiff to third parties.

147. The Defendant caused the False and Defamatory Statements to be made on and

through the Internet.

148. The False and Defamatory Statements identified Plaintiff by name.

149. Persons other than Plaintiff and the Defendant would have and actually have

reasonably understood that the False and Defamatory Statements related to and were about the

Plaintiff.


17

150. The False and Defamatory Statements convey that Plaintiff exercises poor

judgment as an attorney and is unable to responsibly carry out her fiduciary duties and

obligations to her clients, the courts, her colleagues, and the community.

151. The False and Defamatory Statements impute a lack of integrity and an inability

to perform the duties of Plaintiff in her office and employment as an attorney providing legal

representation to the community.

152. The False and Defamatory Statements prejudice Plaintiff and impute a lack of

ability in her profession and business as an attorney providing legal representation to the

community.

153. The Defendant presented the False and Defamatory Statements as fact.

154. The False and Defamatory Statements constituted unprivileged publication of the

defamatory statements by the Defendant to third parties.

155. The Defendant made the False and Defamatory Statements with actual malice

knowing the falsity of the statements.

156. The False and Defamatory Statements constitute defamation per se because they

falsely impute a lack of integrity and an inability to perform the duties of the Plaintiff in her

employment as an attorney, and prejudice the Plaintiff and impute a lack of ability in her

profession and business as an attorney.

157. As a result of the Defendant’s conduct and the publication of the False and

Defamatory Statements, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but

not limited to, loss of business and harmed reputation.

158. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks recovery of compensatory and

punitive damages arising from Defendant’s per se defamation of her.


18

COUNT THREE

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

TRADE DISPARAGEMENT OF PLAINTIFF

ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

815 ILCS § 510/2


and 132 through 157 above in this Third Count as though fully set forth herein.

160. The False and Defamatory Statements are untrue.

161. The False and Defamatory Statements constitute a false representation of fact.

162. The False and Defamatory Statements disparage Plaintiff’s business and services.


164. The Defendant made the False and Defamatory Statements with actual malice,


165. The Defendant wilfully made the False and Defamatory Statements.


Defamatory Statements, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has suffered and continues to suffer damages

including, but not limited to, loss of business and harmed reputation.

167. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks injunctive relief in the form of an

order compelling the Defendant to remove the False and Defamatory Statements from the

Internet.


punitive damages arising from the Defendant’s disparagement of her business and services.


19

169. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks recovery of attorney’s fees and costs

arising from Defendant’s wilful disparagement of her business and services.

COUNT FOUR

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH

PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

170. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through

118, 120 through 129, 132 through 157, and 160 through 166 above in this Fourth Count as

though fully set forth herein.

171. The Plaintiff held a reasonable expectancy of entering into valid business

relationships with consumers who would find her through the Internet.

172. The Defendant expressly directed consumers away from the Plaintiff through

statements made about the Plaintiff in reviews posted on websites targeted toward consumers.

173. Consequently, the Defendant had knowledge of the Plaintiff’s expectancy of

entering into valid business relationships with consumers who would find them through the

Internet.

174. The False and Defamatory Statements identify the Plaintiff by name.


176. The Defendant made the False and Defamatory Statements with the reasonable

expectation that prospective clients who read the review would not choose the Plaintiff’s

services.

177. The Defendant knowingly made the False and Defamatory Statements because he

expected the fraudulent reviews to prevent the Plaintiff from securing new clients.


20

178. The Defendant acted with the intent to tortiously interfere with the Plaintiff’s

business interests by dissuading prospective parties, who read the fraudulent reviews, from

becoming Plaintiff’s clients.

179. The publication of the False and Defamatory Statements constitutes an intentional

and unjustifiable interference with prospective clients of the Plaintiff that would find her through

the Internet.

180. The publication of the False and Defamatory Statements caused prospective

consumers to refrain from contacting and/or doing business with the Plaintiff.


Defamatory Statement, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not

limited to, loss of prospective business.

182. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks recovery of compensatory and

punitive damages arising from the Defendant’s tortious interference with her prospective

economic advantage.

COUNT FIVE

AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FALSE LIGHT


and 132 through 157 above in this Fifth Count as though fully set forth herein.

184. The Defendant published the False and Defamatory Statements on the Internet.

185. The False and Defamatory Statements identify Plaintiff Pamela Hutul by name.

186. The False and Defamatory Statements cast Plaintiff Pamela Hutul in a false light

by falsely portraying her as unethical and dishonest.


21


by falsely portraying her unnecessarily extending litigation and increasing fees for her own

personal benefit.


by falsely portraying as being unable to responsibly carry out her fiduciary duties and obligations

to her clients, the courts, her colleagues, and the community.


by falsely portraying as sub-par.


by falsely portraying her as being disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous in the practice of law.


by falsely portraying her as lacking the integrity or ability to perform in the discharge of her

duties in her employment.


by falsely portraying her as lacking ability in her trade, profession, and business.

193. The Defendant made the False and Defamatory Statements with actual malice,



Defamatory Statements, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has suffered and continues to suffer damages

including, but not limited to, loss of business and harmed reputation.


punitive damages arising from Defendant’s portrayal of her in a false light.


22

COUNT SIX

AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF


in this Sixth Count as though fully set forth herein.

197. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is not and has never been a client or

colleague of the Plaintiff.

198. Upon information and belief, the Defendant impersonated or pretended to be a

client or colleague of the Plaintiff to make the False and Defamatory Statements and engage in

the Wrongful Conduct.

199. The Plaintiff possesses a clearly ascertainable right to be free from an individual

impersonating or pretending to be one of her clients or colleagues and thereby engaging in

conduct maligning her professional and business reputation and interfering with her law practice

and profession.

200. The Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if this Court

does not enjoin Defendant because her office, profession, business, and livelihood will be

disrupted if the Defendant continues to engage in the Wrongful Conduct.

201. The Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief. In

contrast, the Defendant will suffer no harm because he has no legal right to engage in deceptive

and unlawful practices.

202. The Plaintiff can clearly demonstrate some likelihood of success on the merits of

her claims.


23

203. Mere compensation at law can only possibly provide the Plaintiff with

compensation for injuries up to the present.

204. It remains difficult if not impossible to calculate the damages arising from the

Defendant’s Wrongful Conduct.

205. The Plaintiff therefore has an inadequate remedy at law.

206. The public interest will not be harmed if an injunction is granted.

207. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks a temporary and permanent

injunction enjoining Defendant from impersonating or pretending to be a client or colleague of

her; interfering with her law practice; and maligning her professional and business reputations.

GENERAL

208. Where conditions precedent are alleged, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul avers that all

conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.

209. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul demands a jury trial.


24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL accordingly and respectfully prays for

judgment against DEFENDANT DANIEL MAHER as follows:

1. That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded compensatory damages in an

amount to be determined at trial;

2. That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded punitive damages in an amount

to be determined at trial;

3. That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded attorney’s fees and costs;

4. That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded the injunctive relief sought;

and,

5. That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded any such other and further

relief as this Court may deem just and proper or to which she may be entitled as a matter of law

or equity.


25

Dated: Chicago, Illinois PLAINTIFF, June 18, 2012 PAMELA HUTUL

s/Charles Lee Mudd Jr. By: Her Attorneys Charles Lee Mudd Jr. Mudd Law Offices 3114 West Irving Park Road Suite 1W Chicago, Illinois 60618 (773) 588-5410 Phone Illinois ARDC: 6257957 [email protected]

Mark A. Petrolis Mudd Law Offices 3114 West Irving Park Road Chicago, Illinois 60618 Suite 1W (773) 588-5410 Phone (773) 588-5440 Fax Illinois ARDC: 6300549 [email protected]


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

PAMELA HUTUL, ) COMPLAINT ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. ) DANIEL MAHER, ) ) Defendant. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Pamela Hutul demands trial by jury. s/Charles Lee Mudd Jr. Charles Lee Mudd, Jr.


012 Amended Complaint

Documents

Transcript of 012 Amended Complaint