DR Dean Toriumi's Disability 01/14/2004 - Present

2006-L-000289 (Cook County), 1:06-cv-01720 (USDC-IL), 2:06-cv-15203 (USDC-MI) – disability of Dean M.
Toriumi
Timeline of Dean M. Toriumi’s unstable neurological condition, decline in cognitive abilities

and diminished fine motor skills in his right, dominant, hand (disability). Impact of Toriumi’s
disability on his professional activities, including performance of rhinoplasty procedures and
emotional intelligence/empathy in doctor-patient relationship
2002 2014 2023
10 Years Post 19 Years Post

Electrocution at Ritz Carlton Electrocution at Ritz Carlton
01/14/04 – a malfunctioning electrical plug (manufacturer Hybrinetics) in room 824 at Ritz Carlton
Hotel located at 300 Town Center Drive, Dearborn, Michigan, caused a “severe electrical shock” to
Dean Michael Toriumi (age 45). The shock of electricity was “sufficiently severe to cause [Toriumi] to
fall back to the floor”. Toriumi “suffered the electric shock and became injured”.
01/05/05 – Dean M. Toriumi saw Dr. Mark H. Gonzales, an orthopedic/hand surgeon at the
University of Illinois Chicago Hospital, who diagnosed Toriumi with “significant injuries to several of
the fingers on his right, dominant, hand”
2004-2006 (most likely, in April 2006) – Dean M. Toriumi saw Dr. Boris A. Vern, a neurologist at the
University of Illinois Chicago Hospital, for neurological condition and neuropathy post 01/14/04
injury
01/10/06 – Dean M. Toriumi (age 47) filed a complaint with the Circuit Court of Cook County of
Illinois (state court) stating that, “as a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing,
the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, suffered diverse injuries to and about his body, both internally and
externally, of a permanent and lasting nature, which have caused and will continue to cause pain in
body and mind, and as a result of which the Plaintiff has been and will continue to be further
prevented and limited in attending to his usual duties and affairs, and has lost and will in the future
lose great gain which he otherwise would have made and acquired, all to Plaintiff’s damage.”
Toriumi claimed $50K+ in damages from his injuries
Dean M. Toriumi, MD’s professional disability, January 14th, 2004 – present i

2006-L-000289 (Cook County), 1:06-cv-01720 (USDC-IL), 2:06-cv-15203 (USDC-MI) – disability of Dean M. Toriumi
03/29/06 – the case was transferred to the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division (federal court) for appropriate jurisdiction. The defendant Ritz Carlton stated that
Toriumi “is a plastic surgeon and claims that the electric shock has interfered with his ability to
perform surgery” and that he “has suffered permanent injuries as the result of an electrical shock
received at the subject hotel”. Ritz Carlton admitted that Toriumi’s damages from injuries (“amount
in controversy in this action”) exceeded $75K, exclusive of interest and costs
04/13/06 – The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company reported to Toriumi’s lawyers that it was insured
through American Home Assurance Company (Policy No. RMGL4805953, eff. 10/01/03-10/01/04)
with policy limits of $2.5 million per occurrence
05/04/06 – Dean M. Toriumi reported to the court that since 01/14/04 electrocution incident, he
had experienced “numbness, loss of sensation and extreme sensitivity to cold, which conditions
have not improved but have gotten worse over time”, that those injuries “have made it more
difficult to manipulate the fine instruments which are needed to perform the delicate surgery which
is his specially [rhinoplasty], making each surgery more time-consuming and significantly impacting
his income.” “Moreover, an important component of Dr. Toriumi’s damages is the fact that the
[01/14/04 electrocution] incident left him unable to complete his surgeries as expeditiously as he
had prior to the incident, resulting in fewer surgeries and thereby substantially impacting his
income.” Dr. Toriumi’s “profession continues to be negatively impacted by the injuries suffered in the
incident.”
09/27/06 – Ritz Carlton’s co-defendant Hybrinetics (the plug manufacturer) reported to Toriumi’s
lawyers that Hybrinetics was insured through Acordia (Policy No. MZX 80823149, eff. 01/01/04-
01/01/05) with the following policy limits: General Aggregate Limit (Other than Products Completed
Operations) - $2mm; Products — Completed Operations Aggregate Limit - $2mm; Personal &
Advertising Injury Limit - $1mm; Each Occurrence Limit - $1mm
11/14/06-11/21/06 – the case was transferred to the US District Court - Eastern District of Michigan
(federal court) in Detroit, MI because of the jurisdiction convenience for Ritz Carlton, for further
deliberations
03/14/07 – Ritz Carlton and Hybrinetics settled with Toriumi for undisclosed amounts, “based upon
the agreement of the parties”. The settlement amount of Toriumi is estimated to have been
between $75K and $4.5mm
Dean M. Toriumi, MD’s professional disability, January 14th, 2004 – present ii

As of today, 10/07/23, there is no indication that the severe nerve damage and injury of Toriumi
from the 01/14/04 electrocution incident have resolved or whether Toriumi (now age 64) has been
cleared “safe” to perform rhinoplasty procedures post his 01/14/04 nerve damage. Toriumi has
started anti-inflammatory keto (AI-keto) diet to possibly help his own neurological condition and
hand injury (see Toriumi’s “Anti-Inflammatory Diet in the Era of COVID-19”, 2022), however it is
unclear how that AI-keto diet impacts his performance in surgeries, whether he performs
rhinoplasties himself or delegates the performance of rhinoplasties to his fellows.
Although the number of lawsuits against Toriumi is approximately the same, as before electrocution
– about 1 medical malpractice lawsuit filed against Toriumi every 4.7 years, the frequency of fellow-
type medical mistakes and negligence, including negligently performed procedures, non-consensual
procedures and grafts, presence of ghost surgeons, seems to be on the rise. Also, the 2017 moving
traffic violation with reckless driving and delayed reaction to surroundings, seems to objectively
indicate some decline in Toriumi’s motor skills, cognitive abilities and possibly the effect of Toriumi’s
adverse neurological condition on his physical performance.
Toriumi hires new AAFPRS fellows every year to “assist” him in performing rhinoplasty procedures.
In Helen Kakos -vs- Dean Toriumi 2010-2014 case, Colin Pero, MD, Toriumi’s fellow at the time, in her
deposition speaks about autonomy that Toriumi gives his fellows while they work for him “40-80
hours” a week. In Jeffrey Feeney -vs- Dean Toriumi 2020-2023 case, “surgical team members” (and
one very prominent fellow) played an important part in the medical battery on Feeney in 2019.
Given Toriumi’s dominant right hand is permanently and severely incapacitated, Toriumi has to
heavily rely on fellows to assist in performing his surgeries which increases the surgical risks of
death, injury or suboptimal result by about two times^.
A lot of patients of Toriumi have reported lack of empathy and emotional intelligence that leads to a
chain of destructive revisions with Toriumi and performance by Toriumi of non-consensual
experimental procedures, such as banking cartilage behind the right hairline (behind the right ear)
or clinical trials of new techniques, not preoperatively communicated to the patients. Toriumi
performs a lot of non-consensual trials, investigational/experimental techniques and grafting “for
the sake of science”, for his upcoming research articles.
In summary, the long-term impact of the 2004 electrocution event on Toriumi’s physical and mental
abilities remains unclear. However we know that the electric shock Toriumi received on 01/14/04
was severe and caused permanent injuries, evident at least through 03/14/07 when Toriumi settled
his premises liability case with Ritz Carlton/Hybrinetics. According to recent reports by the patients,
many patients of Toriumi seem to be paying $35-70K for surgeries effectively performed by Toriumi’s
fellows, that is, completed by someone with an MD degree, hospital residency and very limited
experience in rhinoplasty procedures, with destructive functional and underwhelming aesthetic
results.
Dean M. Toriumi, MD’s professional disability, January 14th, 2004 – present iii
^ In 2016, Congress conducted investigation of concurrent and overlapping surgeries, where fellows/residents
perform surgery on a patient without primary surgeon’s supervision (ghost surgery) 1. This investigation was
followed by observational study in 2017. In that study, Liu et al. reviewed the outcomes of 534 thousand
concurrent and nonconcurrent surgeries in 2014-2015 across multiple specialties, including 4,189 otolaryngology
and 2,865 plastic surgery cases.2
Plastic surgery stood out with 14% of total surgeries performed as concurrent, followed by 11% concurrent
surgeries in otolaryngology. Adverse outcomes in plastic surgery and otolaryngology almost double, 1.9 and 1.7
times higher, when a surgery is concurrent/unsupervised. In general surgery and other specialties, adverse
outcomes in absence of a primary surgeon increase 1.3-1.5 times. That means that adverse outcomes in plastic
surgery/otolaryngology concurrent surgeries are more frequently than in other specialties.
The risk of death in the hands of resident/fellow increases from

- 3.8% to 5.1% (i.e. 1.4x) in plastic surgery
- 3.4% to 6.4% (i.e. 1.9x) in otolaryngology
- 7.4% to 10.8% (i.e. 1.5x) in general surgery
- 6.9% to 8.9% (i.e. 1.3x) in other surgery
The risk of reoperation after being operated by a resident/fellow, increases from

The risk of readmission after being operated by a resident/fellow, increases from
That is, the risk of adverse outcomes in otolaryngology or plastic surgery involving unsupervised fellows or
residents, is very high when compared to other specialties, and oftentimes constitutes medical battery on a
patient.
Footnotes:
1. A Senate Finance Committee Staff Report on Concurrent and Overlapping Surgeries: Additional Measures Warranted –
Bipartisan Report issued by Senators Hatch, Wyden on 12/06/16
2. Observational Study "Outcomes of Concurrent Operations: Results From the American College of Surgeons' National
Surgical Quality Improvement Program", Jason B. Liu et al., Ann Surg. 2017 Sep; 266(3):411-420. DOI:
10.1097/SLA.0000000000002358
Dean M. Toriumi, MD’s professional disability, January 14th, 2004 – present iv

Medical Malpractice Lawsuits against Toriumi
Case Number Plaintiff Vs Defendant
Before 01/14/04 Electrocution of Toriumi (~14 years timespan)

1995L016745 BERNARD GARB -vs- UNIVERSITY IL HOSPITAL,DEAN TORIUMI (unspecified medmal)
1996L011246 MAKRAM SALIB -vs- SHAMIM DADA, MD, DEAN TORIUMI,MD et al(unspecified medmal)
2002L010620 ALEC SCOTT -vs- BENJAMIN LIGHT, MD, DEAN TORIUMI, MD(ghost surgery, med.battery)
After 01/14/04 Electrocution of Toriumi (~19 years timespan)

2010L001341 KENNETH CLARK -vs- DEAN TORIUMI,MD (non-consensual banking),refiled 2013L013546
2010L012979 HELEN KAKOS -vs- DEAN TORIUMI, MD, 900 NORTH MICHIGAN SURG, et al. (non-
consensual cartilage banking behind the hairline, ghost surgeons)
2011L011493 DENA CHOATE -vs- DEAN TORIUMI (non-consensual procedures, negligence)
2020L013631 JEFFREY FEENEY -vs- 900 NORTH MICHIGAN SURGIC, DEAN TORIUMI (non-consensual,
destructive total "reconstruction", ghost surgery)
Traffic accident in 2017 – reckless driving, delayed reaction

2019L002380 RAFAEL ROBINSON -vs- RYAN HANCOCK,DEAN TORIUMI (traffic accident in 2017)
2019L001695 RYAN HANCOCK -vs- DEAN TORIUMI (traffic accident in 2017)
Moving and Non-Moving Traffic Violations

1995-2017 - TORIUMI, DEAN M
Offense Citation Statute Degree Offense Date

Disp Regis Plate/Decal/1ST,2ND Y1088661 625 ILCS 5/3-413 P 7/2/1990
Local Offense Code: 1813810 P3782962 Offense Not Mapped CONV 11/12/1990

Operate Uninsured Mtr Vehicle Y3273516 625 ILCS 5/3-707 U 5/9/1993
Driving 15-20 MPH Above Limit Y4514499 625 ILCS 5/11-601(b) P 3/17/1995
Driving 15-20 MPH Above Limit YW131467 625 ILCS 5/11-601(b) P 10/1/2012
Driving 15-20 MPH Above Limit not assigned 625 ILCS 5/11-601 P
3/8/2017
Failed to Use Horn not assigned 625 ILCS 5/12-601 P
Dean M. Toriumi, MD’s professional disability, January 14th, 2004 – present v

10/7/23, 4:45 PM Mark H Gonzalez - Orthopaedics | UI Health
it Ul Health | @
& 866.600.CARE
ESPANOL & 866.600.CARE
FINDA PROVIDER
Search by name, specialty, or keywords Find
Advanced Search by Gender, Language, or Location
= ADDITIONAL NAVIGATION
Mark H. Gonzalez, MD, PhD
Orthopaedics
Request an Appointment Refer a Patient
GET TO KNOW OUR PROVIDER
Dr. Mark H. Gonzalez is a surgeon in the Department of Orthopaedics at Ul Health. Dr. Gonzalez's
orthopaedic specialties include hand surgery, peripheral nerve surgery, and hip and knee replacement. As
a native Chicagoan, Dr. Gonzalez is honored to treat the communities in his hometown. He understands
the concern patients have about orthopaedic injuries — if patients cannot walk or use their hand, they may
not be able to do their jobs or provide for their families, and do the things they enjoy. Dr. Gonzalez is
committed to restoring patients’ function, so that they can return to doing what is most important to them
and their families. Dr. Gonzalez is the Riad Barmada Professor and Chair in the Department of
Orthopaedics at the University of Illinois College of Medicine.
Language : English, Spanish
https://hospital.uillinois.edu/find-a-doctor/mark-h-gonzalez 1/3
10/7/23, 4:45 PM Mark H Gonzalez - Orthopaedics | Ul Health
SPECIALTIES & SERVICES
Orthopaedics
Hand Surgery
Peripheral Nerve Surgery
Hip and Knee Replacement
LOCATION
Outpatient Care Center, Suite 2A

1801 W. Taylor St.
Chicago, IL 60612
312.996.1300
EDUCATION
Board Certification:
American Board of Orthopedic Surgery
Board Certification:
American Board of Surgery \ Hand Surgery
Fellowship:
Blodgett Hospital, Michigan State University
Fellowship:
University of Louisville
Fellowship:
Ohio State University
Internship:
University of Illinois Hospital at Chicago
Medical School:
University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine
https://hospital.uillinois.edu/find-a-doctor/mark-h-gonzalez 2/3
Boris Vern
Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at UIC College of Medicine
• UIC College of Medicine

• The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences
Elmwood Park, Illinois, United States
Experience
Clinical Associate Professor of MedicineClinical Associate Professor of Medicine

UIC College of MedicineUIC College of MedicineDec 2011 - Present · 11 yrs 11
mosDec 2011 - Present · 11 yrs 11 mosUIC Sleep Science Center; 2242 West Harrison
St., Suite 104; Chicago, IL 60612UIC Sleep Science Center; 2242 West Harrison St.,
Suite 104; Chicago, IL 60612
▪ Research in and treatment of narcolepsy
Associate Professor of NeurologyAssociate Professor of Neurology

UIC College of MedicineUIC College of MedicineJul 1984 - Aug 2009 · 25 yrs 2 mosJul
1984 - Aug 2009 · 25 yrs 2 mos
▪ General neurology; Teaching of residents and students; Basic research in

cortical neurophysiology (monitoring of sleep state transitions by
reflectance spectrophotometry through cortical windows in cats and
rabbits); Clinical research in narcolepsy: Clinical trials of
ModafinilGeneral neurology; Teaching of residents and students; Basic
research in cortical neurophysiology (monitoring of sleep state transitions
by reflectance spectrophotometry through cortical windows in cats and
rabbits); Clinical research in narcolepsy: Clinical trials of Modafinil…
▪ Commisioned Officer and Clinical AssociateCommisioned Officer and
Clinical Associate
▪ US Public Health ServiceUS Public Health ServiceJul 1973 - Jun 1976 · 3
yrsJul 1973 - Jun 1976 · 3 yrsNINCDS, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda MDNINCDS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda MD
▪ Basic research in cortical blood flow and metabolism, using models of
cerebral ischemia, brainstem stimulation, and epilepsy (focal and
generalized). Methods included electrocorticography, focal monitoring of
cortical extracellular [K+], and optical spectroscopy of cortex and
hippocampus in cats(fluorometry and reflectance methods).Basic research
in cortical blood flow and metabolism, using models of cerebral ischemia,
brainstem stimulation, and epilepsy (focal and generalized). Methods
included electrocorticography, focal monitoring of cortical extracellular
[K+], and optical spectroscopy of cortex and hippocampus in
cats(fluorometry and reflectance methods).…
Education
The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health SciencesThe George
Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences
Neurology Residency, Neurology Residency ProgramNeurology Residency, Neurology
Residency Program1976 - 1979
Northwestern University - The Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern University -

The Feinberg School of Medicine Doctor of Medicine (MD), MedicineDoctor of
Medicine (MD), Medicine1966 - 1972
▪ MD/PhD ProgramMD/PhD Program
Northwestern UniversityNorthwestern University

PhD, Biology/sleep physiologyPhD, Biology/sleep physiology1968 - 1971
The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health SciencesThe George
Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences
Neurology Residency, Neurology Residency ProgramNeurology Residency, Neurology
Residency Program1976 - 1979
Northwestern University - The Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern University - The

Feinberg School of Medicine
Doctor of Medicine (MD), MedicineDoctor of Medicine (MD), Medicine1966 - 1972
MD/PhD ProgramMD/PhD Program

PhD, Biology/sleep physiologyPhD, Biology/sleep physiology1968 - 1971

Bachelor of Science (BS), MedicineBachelor of Science (BS), Medicine1964 - 1968
Skills
Clinical Neurology
Basic and clinical research in sleep physiology
Treatment of narcolepsy and other REM sleep disorders
Cortical data processing
Interests
Companies Schools
o Northwestern University
335,438 followers
o Northwestern University - The Feinberg School of Medicine
31,012 followers
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Case 2006L000289
DEAN TORIUMI, MD -vs- RITZ CARLTON

(disability caused by electrocution)
Civil Action Cover Sheet % 8ON9)- CCLos
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK OOUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
b(é\\f\ M. Id‘r-‘uw\\
No.
R . C(;-;/‘fa'x Hd{gl (om‘m»\z
2006L00062827
CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET CALENDAR/ROGHN E
“TIME 002090
Promices 1 5mihil 1+v
A Civil Action Cover Sheet shall be filed with the complaint in all
civil actions. The information contained herein is for administrative
purposes only and cannot be introduced into evidence. Please check the
box in front of the appropriate general category and then check the
subcategory thereunder, if applicable, which best characterizes your
action.
Jury Demand Qe DN«
. Jfi ERSOEALH‘UURYIWRONGFULDEATK
027 Motor Vehicle

040
pppooog,
Medical Malpractice
047 Asbestos
048 Dram Shop
049 Praduct Liability QO COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
Construction Injuries
(including Structural Work Act, Road 002 Breach of Coatract
00
Construction Injuries Act aad negligeace) 070 [Professional Malprzchee
Railroad/FELA (other than legal or medical)
071 Fraud
0O00G0
Pediatric Lead Exposure

gopo
061 Other Personal Injury/Wrongful Déathu 072 Consumer Fraud

063, Inteational Tort 073 Breach of Warranty
064 Miscellancous Statutory Action 074 Statutory Action
(Please Specify Below*¥) (Please Specify Below**)
065 Premises Liability 075 Other Commercial Litigation
0
ggr
078 Fen-phew/Redux Litigation (Please Specify Below**)

. 199 -Silicone Tmplaat 076 Retaliatory Discliarge
0o
062_PROPERTY DAMAGE Q 077 LIBEL/SLANDER -
Moot
o
066_LEGAL MALPRACTICE
n]
O OTHER ACT] IONS

Q TAX & MISCELLANEQUS REMEDIES
0 .079 Petition for Qu:hl'fled Ordm
Confession of Judgment Q 084 Petition to Issuc Subpocaa
Replevin O 100 Petition for Discovery .
opoooopoo
Tax
*
Coandemnation
Detinue
2
g
Unemployment Campensation
Administrative Review Action
Petition to Register Foreign Judgmeat
All Other Extraordinary Remedies
(Att3cncy)
T o smases CCRRK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
R
K COUNTY, ILLINOIS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COO DIVISION
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW
)
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
)
) 20061000289
Plaintiff, NO. CALENDAR/ROOM E
) TIME 00200
V. )
Premises Liabilix y
) ¥
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL ) i
COMPANY, L.L.C., )
) i
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
M. TORIUMI, by and thmuglgns

Now comes the Plaintiff, DEAN
and for his Complaint against the Defendan'-f.;)
Daley & Mohan, P.C.,
states a5 Bpllor
L.L.C., hereinafter “THE RITZ”,
CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,
the Defendant, THE RITZ, was 2 foreign
1. At all times relevant hereto,
in the States of Illinois
liab ilit y corp orat ion, auth orized to do and doing business
limited
rs.
and Michigan, among othe
was and is
Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI,
2% At all times relevant hereto, the
.
a resident of Cook County, Tllinois
THE RITZ was the owner of certain real
3: At all times relevant hereto,
on which real estate THE
te loca ted at 300 Tow n Cent er Drive, Dearborn, Michigan,
esta
known as The
oper ate, main tain and cont rol a certain public hotel, commonly
RITZ did
Ritz-Carlton Dearborn.
ully on the
f, Dean M. Toriumi, was lawf
On January 14, 2004, the Plaintif
4.
e of public accommodation,
ing guest of said hotel and plac
premises as aforesaid as a pay
invitee of Defendant.
and as such, was a business
(¢) Allowing bare wires exposed on the plug to remain in a public area
utilized by its business invitees, although Defendant knew or
should have known of the danger thereby created;
(d) Failure to warn the Plaintiff that there was a defective plug and
fixture in his room;
(e) Failure to eliminate the hazard caused by the exposed wires on the
electrical cord in the room as aforesaid.
12: As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing, the
Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, suffered diverse injuries to and about his body, both
internally and externally, of a permanent and lasting nature, which have caused and will
continue to cause pain in body and mind, and as a result of which the Plaintiff has been
and will continue to be further prevented and limited in attending to his usual duties and
affairs, and has lost and will in the future lose great gain which he otherwise would have
made apd acquired, all to Plaintiff’s damage.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, prays for judgment against
Defendant, THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C, a foreign limited
liability corporation in an amount which is within the jurisdictional power of this Court to
award as proven by the evidence, and in excess of Fifty Thousarid Dollars ($50,000.00),
plus costs of this action.
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
150 North Wacker Drive
Suite 1550
Chicago, lllinois 60606
(312) 422-9999
Firm No. 36564
QuOCoNRS |
IS |
N ; CLERK GF THE CIRCUIT COURT - COOX COUATY
0R10908 Las-0! L/10/2006 32703
g i ATTY: 36564 019 ESHEPARD
583 |
i i $50:00L.60
CHSE NO: 2006L000289 LALERDAR: E
COURT DATE: G/0/0000 1230044
1 CASE TOTAL: $324.00
o8 ! 12 Jurars 3 4230.00
Q. 6°E
=™ > Autanstion $15.90
Docuzent Storase $15.0
=N§ E ri= 3 $13.90
=85z z 2 $10.00
=05 P S Faa 6
olution
5240.50
$1.00
=E
=
Q2= sF<<wy ] CHECK 7284
CHECK AHaUnT: 432499
ENI5 06 2 CHANGE 30,00
=®F N D TRANSACTION TOTAL: 35240
=0F &
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) NO.
)
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL )
COMPANY, L.L.C., )
)
Defendants. )
€2 € Wa O1KIC
COMPLAINT
sl
Now comes the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, by and through h:
¢
i
Daley & Mohan, P.C., and for his Complaint against the Defendant,
CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.LAC‘,_]vieminafier “THE RITZ?, states as follows:
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant, THE RITZ, was a fo}eign
limited liability corporation, authorized to do and doing business in the States of Illinois
and Michigan, among others.
2. At all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, was and is
a resident of Cook County, Illinois.
3. At all times relevant hereto, THE RITZ was the owner of certain real
estate located at 300 Town Center Drive, Dearborn, Michigan, on which real estate THE
RITZ did operate, mamtmn and control a certain public hotel, commonly known as The
4, On January 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, was lawfully on the
premises as aforesaid as a paying guest of said hotel and place of public accommodation,
and as such, was a business invitee of Defendant.

5: At all times hereinafter mentioned, it was the duty of the Defendant to
exercise ordinary care in the ownership, maintenance and control of their real and
personal property to see that their premises, and the personal property maintained
thereon, were in reasonably safe condition for the use of business invitees on the
property, including the Plaintiff herein.
6. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, was in
the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety.
B At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant provided certain electrical
fixtures in its rooms, including a fixture located next to the bed behind the nightstand.
8. On the date as aforesaid, the Plaintiff did reach behind the nightstand to
remove the plug from the outlet so that he could use the electrical outlet for another
purpose.
9. Upon grasping the plug, the Plaintiff was jolted with a shock of electricity,
which was sufficiently severe to cause him to fall back to the floor.
10. The plug in the hotel room at the time and place aforesaid had bare wires
and was not properly insulated, thus directly causing the Plaintiff to suffer the electrical
shock and become injured.
11. The electrical shock suffered by the Plaintiff as aforesaid was directly and
proximately caused by one or ‘more of the foregoing careless and negligent acts of the
Defendant, in violation of its duty as aforesaid:
(@) Failure to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condi.tion;
(b) Failure to maintain its electrical fixtures in a reasonably safe

condition;
() Allowing bare wires exposed on the plug to remain in a public area
utilized by its business invitees, although Defendant knew or
should have known of the danger thereby created;
(d) Failure to warn the Plaintiff that there was a defective plug and
(e) Failure to eliminate the hazard caused by the exposed wires on the
electrical cord in the room as aforesaid.
12. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing, the
Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, suffered diverse injuries to and about his body, both
internaily and externally, of a permanent and lasting nature, which have caused and will
continue to cause pain in body and mind, and as a result of which the Plaintiff has been
and will continue to be further prevented and limited in attending to his usual duties and
affairs, and has lost and will in the future lose great gain which he otherwise would have
g made and acquired, all to Plaintiff’s damage.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUM], prays for judgment against
Defendant, THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., a foreign limited
liability corporation in an amount which is within the jurisdictional power of this Court to
award as proven by the evidence, and in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00),
B2
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIEF

Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
* 150 North Wacker Drive
Suite 1550
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 422-9999
Firm No. 36564
Qrig~ss

COUNTY DEPARTMENT —~ LAW DIVISION
SCOTT LABOR, L.L.C., an Illinois limited )

liability company, )
)
GG 3y 5 Plaintiff, )
o 3
WS, ;
)
No. ooy L ¥
THE FORM HOUSE, INC., an Illinois )
Corporation, ) L]?w D% :!% ::-xlo) 6
b )3
&AN 1007
oLeRk
E'Emcrg
9 COURT
ROUTINE MOTION TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROCESS
SERVER
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, SCOTT LABOR, L.L.C., by and through its
attorneys, MITCHELL B. RUCHIM & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ask this Honorable
Court for entry of an order granting the Plaintiff leave to serve the Defendant, THE
FORM HOUSE, INC., an Illinois Corporation, through a Special Process Server, who is
over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action, for reasons that the Defendant
may be difficult to serve during usual serving hours. That the appointment of a Special
Process Server will facilitate the administration of justice.
MITCHELL B. RUCHIM & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By: M J’/QL"*"/\
One of its AttSmefb
Mitchell B. Ruchim
Rocky J. Hudson
Lindsay B. Coleman
Mitchell B. Ruchim & Associates, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
3000 Dundee Road, Suite 415
Northbroo}c Illinois 60062
(847) 27 »280
Attormey (NG 18965
. COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISfON
))
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
—
- Plaintiff, )
V. ) NO. 2006 L 000289
)
COMPANY, L.L.C., )
)
Defendants. )
AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO
SUPREME COURT RULE 222
Bernard Roccanova, on oath states, that he is the attorney for the Plamhff Dp@n
-xzc 2
M. Toriumi, and that the money damages sought in this case are in excess 6f SW Oé‘
Wl S"d
BERNARD ROCCANOVA
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to
Le
before me this 3"‘“day of March, 2006.
FFICALSEAL
NOTARV PUBLIC’:
MY co mfii’ltums
EXPIRES: 10-10-06
Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
(312) 422 9999,
oY D
3&10 J/(Z Zq >

IN THE CIRCU#T COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Efl
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION H
~ DEAN M. TORIUMI, ) <l
: )
Plaintiff, ) NO. 2006 L 000289
v. )
) Please Serve: 2/ ao-
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL ) The Ritz Cariton Hotel C , C
COMPANY, L.L.C., ) /o Prentice Hall Corporatio 0001 02/26/06 1435
) 33 N. LaSalle Street REF CA'"E. 2 4 0,{ 00289 =i
Defendants. ) Chicago, IL { LAI; o L B0
nté HILEAGE .40
SHERIFF 4 685253
O ‘o each defendant:
SUMMONS CHSE TOTAL T .40 §
e
YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the complaint in this case, %fi o stachd, o B.40
otherwise file your appearance, and pay the required fee, in the office of the Clerk of this Court at
Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Room 802, Chicago, Ilinois 60602.
You must file within 30 days after service of this summons, not counting the day of service. IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY
DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT.
To the officer:
{ This summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, ent of service and
_ fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, thus summons shiall be returned-so & Is summons xmy nut be
served Iater than 30.days after.ifs dat: SR ] .\‘“ --
O :
WITNESS _ et 2006
PURY* .
Clerk of Cdurt
Date of service:
Bemard Roccanova (To be inserted by officer on copy left with defendant or other person)
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C. B
Attorney for Plaintiff
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1550
Chicago, Illinois ‘60606
312/422-9999
Attorney No. 36564
: DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
TYPE LAW --..SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DISTRICT 003
SHERIFF'S i NUMBER 685253-001L o CASE NUMBER 0&2_&“ DEPUTY: STROM 3696~

FILED DT 02-24-2006 RECEIVED T 02-24-2006 DIE DT 03-22-2006 MULTIPLE SERVICE 1
DEFENDANT ATTORNEY .
RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC. DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
33 N LA SALLE ST X )
CHICAGO IL. 60602 X XX. 00000
312 422-9999
PLAINTIFF DEAN M. TORIUMI
SERVICE INFORMATION: MJ C/O PRENTICE HALL CORPORATION

RARARKARARRARARRAKARIARAARARARRARARIARARAARARARRARRARRAAAKRERARARKERAARRRAAARARRAARRAARAAR K
(A) | CERTIFY THAT | SERVED THIS SUMMONS ON THE DEFENDANT AS FOLLOWS:
.-...1 PERSONAL SERVICE: BY LEAVING A COPY OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WITH THE
NAMED DEFENDANT PERSONALLY.
+--.-2 SUBSTITUTE SERVICE: BY LEAVING A COPY OF THE SUMMONS AND A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
AT THE DEFENDANT'S USUAL PLACE OF ABODE WITH SOME PERSON OF THE FAMILY OR A PERSON
RESIDING THERE, OF THE AGE OF 13 YEARS OR UPWARDS, AND INFORMING THAT PERSON OF
THE CONTENTS THEREOF. ALSO, A COPY OF THE SUMMONS WAS MAILED ON THE
DAY OF 20, IN A SEALED ENVELOPE WITH POSTAGE FULLY
PREPAID, ADDRESSED TO THE DEFENDANT AT HIS OR HER USUAL PLACE OF ABODE.
SAID PARTY REFUSED NAME
««4..3 SERVICE ON: CORPORATION& COMPANY BUSINESS, PARTNERSHIP.
BY LEAVING A COPY OF THE_SUI D COMPLAINT {OR INTERROGATORIES) WITH THE
REG1STERED AGENT, THORIZED PERSON OR PARTNER ,OF THE DEFENDANT.
«ee..h CERTIFIED MAIL
(B) MICHAEL F. SHEAHAN, sm:mr 5 nv. Zz<, | ey 3696

T
1 SEX 1} mE
2 NAME OF DEFENDANT RITZ ( I:ARL/'%I COHPMIY
HOQTEL LLC{L/ ‘%C
__WRIT SERVED ON
THIS 7|uv or/%/f{ I%TIHF/flP .

ADDITIONAL REMARKS
ARAAAKRARKARAARRARRARRARRAARARRAARAARRARRARRARRAARAARRARRAARAARRAIRRARRRRRARRRAXRARRAARKAAK
THE NAMED DEFENDANT WAS NOT SERVI

TYPE OF BLDG /Q ATTEMPTED SERVICES
NE1GHBORS NAME DATE TIME A.M./P.M.
ADDRESS :
REASON NOT SERVED: < s

___07 EMPLOYER REFUSAL
___01 MOVED 08 RETURNED BY ATTY :
___02 NO CONTACT 09 DECEASED
03 EMPTY LOT 710, BLDG DEMOL ISHED :
0 NOT LISTED 11 NO .REGISTERED AGT.
—__05 WRONG ADDRESS 12 OTHER REASONS
06 NO SUCH ADDRESS 13
—__ OUT OF COUNTY
FEE .00 MILEAGE .00 TOTAL .00 $625

COUNTY DEPARTMENT ~ LAW DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiffs,
2, ®
-vs- No. 06 L 000289
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL

COMPANY, L.L.C.,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL? /I )

2820 .
g
TO: Bernard Roccanova &
Daley & Mohan, P.C. & al
150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1550 3&0 =
Chicago, Illinois 60606 "G‘( =
n
.?J o
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Notice of Removal of this au.@rwas fifed

ny
with the United States District Court for the Northern District :f~llhg)®ls
Eastern Division, as Case No. on March , 2006. A copy of the
Notice of Removal has also been filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Law Division on March , 2006. A copy of the Notice of Removal is
attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.,
ert M. Burke, One of the

Attorneys for Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C.
ROBERT M. BURKE
33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
Telephone: (312} 0
Attorney 06347
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) S8.
COUNTY OF COOK )
LISA A. MORRISON, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and
states that she served a copy of the above and foregoing NOTICE OF FILING
NOTICE OF REMOVAL to all attorneys of record, by depositing a copy of same
in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, thisfl’ day of March,
2006.
er/ penalties provided by law

pursuant to ILL.REV.STAT. CHAP. 110
Sec. 1-109, I certify that the statements
set forth herein are true and correct.
JOHNSON & BELLL, LTD.

33 West Monroe Street
Suite 2700
(312) 372-0770
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Rev. 1/06
g ™ ) COUNTY DEPARTMENT-LAW DIVISION
)’
Plaintiffs )
v C@me )) No: 06 L 289
: )
/&7‘/5; ) Motion Call “E” Line#:
Defenddnits )
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER a
(Please check off all pertinent paragraphs and circle proper party name) f
(8230)_____1. Category #1 (18-mo. discovery) (8232) 1A. Category
#2 (28 Mo. Discove%')
( ) ____ 2. Written discovery to be issued by or deemed waived;
(4296) _____ 3. Written discovery & 213(f)(1) and (2) disclosures to be completed by
(4218)_____ 4. Oral discovery & 213(f)(1) and (2) depositions to be completed by
(4218) 5. Treating physicians depositions to be completed by ;
(4288) 6. Subpoenas for treating physicians deps to be issued by H
(4296) i shall complete outstanding written discovery by I:: 5
(4218) 8. shall be presented for deposition by - VBJ ;
(4206) 9. (Plaintiff)(Defendant)(Add. Party) shall answer 213 (f)(3) lnterrogak!fl'gsw
O
3
(4218) 10. Plaintiff's 213(f)(3) witnesses to be deposed by
(4218) 11. Defendant’s 213(f)(3) witnesses to be deposed by 3
(4218) __ 12. Add. party‘s 213(f)(3) witnesses to be deposed by E
(4619) __ 13. The matter is continued for subse%uent Case Management Conference on
AM/PM in Room 2210 for: .
(A)____Proper Service (B)_____Appearance of Defendants (C)_Case Value
(D)___Pleadings Status (E)____Discovery Status (F)___| Pre—TriaVSetflemem
(6)___Mediation Status (H) Other
(Qage UKW, Ageoveld £ Ledopl of . 3227-06 Wé‘f
(4005) 14. Case is dismissed for want of prosecution. (4040) The case is voluntaril
;
6# -~
Judge Kathy hi. ismissed under 735 ILCS 5/2-1009.
NAgIE: flzp&/\. [ ENTE!
PRORES>:
ATTY ID¥: -
MAY 0 4 2006
ATTYFORPARTYZ 1 Cirouit Court 267
NOTICE:
¥ COPIE: F ALL PRIOR CMC ORDERS MUS'I; BE BROUGHT TO ALL CMC COURT DATES!!
% FAILURE OF ANY PARTY TO COMPLY WITH THIS CMC ORDER WILL BE A BASIS FOR
SCR 219 U)I_SANCTIONS FAILURE O Y PARTY ENFORCE THIS CMC ORDER WILL
CONSTI E A WAIVER OF SUCH Dlsc VERY BY THAT PARTY.
% ALL CASES
T ARRIVING ON THE TRIAL CALL IN ROOM 2005 MUST HAVE ALL DISCOVERY
INLINES
N L 2 THROUGH 11 COMPLETED.
xA COPY Y OF F THIS ORDER IS TQ BE SENT TO EACH PARTY BY HIS/HER COUNSEL WITHIN
TEN (10) D DAYS OF THE INITIAL CMC.
wwwsw NOTICE »ww=wn
CASE 06-L-000288
TORIUMI DEAN M v RITZ CARLTON HOTEL CO LLC
THERE WILL BE A CASE MANAGEMENT CALL OF YOUR CASE ON THURSDAY

THE 4TH DAY OF MAY IN ROOM 2210 AT 10:00 AM. AT THE
iL
DALEY CENTER COURT HOUSE, 50 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, CHICAGO,
wewww ATTENTION » =«
=«
ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD MUST APPEAR

US District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division
Case 1:06-cv-01720
DEAN TORIUMI, MD -vs- RITZ CARLTON

Case: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 22 Filed: 05/04/06 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:66
Case: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/29/06 Page 1 of 9 PagelD #:1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
s
06CV1720
COMPANY, L.L.C., JUDGE GUZMAN
MAG. DENLOW
Defendant. B
NOTICE OF REMOVAL
Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C §1441, et seq, Defendant, THE RITZ-
CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., by and through one of its attorncys,
ROBERT M. BURKE of JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., hereby gives notice of the
removal of the above-captioned action from the Circuit Court of Cook County -
TLaw Division, Case No, 06 L 289 to the United States District Court, Northern
District of lllinois, Eastern Division, and states the following:
1. On or about January 10, 2006, Plaintiff initiated the above
captioned lawsuit by the filing of a Complaint entitled Dean M, Toriumi v. The
Ritz-Carllon Hotel Company, L.L.C., Docket No. 06 L 289. A copy of the initial
Complaint at Law is attached hereto, labeled Exhibit “A”, and incorporated
herein by reference.
2. On or about February 24, 2006, Plaintiff caused a Summons to be
issued, which Summons was served upon the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company,
L.L.C.'s registered agent on March 7, 2006. A copy of the Summons is attached
hereto, labeled Exhibit “B”, and incorporated herein by reference,

3. The United States District Court has jurisdiction over the above
described action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 and §1441 for the following
reasons:
(a) Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, at the time the lawsuit was

commenced and at all relevant times, has been a resident
and citizen of the State of Illinois;
The Defendant, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.,

was, at the time of the commencement of this action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County and at all relevant times, a
limited liability company formed under the laws of the Statc
of Delaware with its principle place of busincss located in
Bethesda, Maryland. The members of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C. are: Marriott International Capital Corp.,
Marriott Senior Holdings Company, MI Holding, L.P., R.C.
Marriott I, Inc, and R.C. Marriott, Inc. Marriott
International Capital Corp. is a Delaware Corporation with
its headquarters and principle placc of business in
Bethesda, Maryland. Marriott Senior Holdings Company is
a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters and
principle place of business in Bethesda, Maryland. R.C.
Marriott, Inc., is a Dclaware Corporation with its
headquarters and principle place of business in Bethesda,
Maryland. R.C. Marriott III, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation
with its headquarters and principle place of business in
Bethesda, Maryland. MI Holding, L.P., is a Delaware
Limited Partnership with its headquarters and principle
place of business in Bethesda, Maryland. Its partners are
R.C. Marriott, Inc., R.C. Marriott II, Inc., and Fred V. Malek.
Both R.C. Marriott, Inc. and R.C. Marriott II, Inc. are
Delaware Corporations with their corporate headquarters
and principle places in business in Bethesda, Maryland.
Fred Malek is a Virginia resident and citizen. The forcgoing
statements were true as of the date the instant lawsuit was
filed and at all relevant times.
Defendant is, therefore, a citizen, for diversity of citizenship

purposcs, of the States of Delaware, Virginia, and
Maryland;
According to the allegations contained in the Complaint

filed by the Plaintifl herein, the amount of damages sought
in this action is in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the
Law Division of the Circuit Court of Cock County, which is
$50,000.00. Plaintiff has submitted a report from an
orthopedic surgeon indicating that Plaintiff has suffered
permanent injuries as the result of an electrical shock
received by him at the subject hotel. Plaintiff is a plastic

surgeon and claims that the electrical shock has interfered
with his ability to perform surgery. Based upon the
foregoing, it is Defendant’s good faith belief that the amount
in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive
of interest and costs;
This Notice of Removal is being filed with the Clerk of the

United States District Court for the Northern District,
Eastern Division, within thirty (30} days of service of the
summons and complaint on this Defendant;
This action, based upon diversity of cilizenship and the

amount in controversy is, therefore, properly removable
pursuant to 28 U.8.C. §1441{a).
4, Defendant will promptly file a copy of this Notice of Removal with
the Clerk of the Cireuit Court of Cook in the State of lllinois.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,
L.L.C., respectfully requests that this case proceed before this Court as an
action properly removed.
Respoctfully submitted,
By:
" Robert M. B rke, One of the
Attorneys [or the Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Company, L.L.C.
ROBERT M. BURKE
33 West Monroe Street, #2700
Telephone: (312) 0770
Attarney No. 06347
INOIS
OF COOK COUNTY, ILL
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT MENT, LAW DIVISION
COUNTY DEPART
DEAN M. TORIGMI, %
Plaintiff, )
3y NO.
v
i 20061 002289
)
COMPANY, L.L.C.y
)
Defendants. }
COMPLAINT
vooe
gh hihfl,{o{ays,
N M., TORIUMI, by and trou
Now comes the Plaintiff, DEA =, s
ndan t, THE RIFEZ-
his Complaint against the Defe
Daley & Mohan, P-C., and for
’
RITZ", states 28 fuéjé&‘ %,
Y,L.L.C, hereinefter “THE
CARLTON HOTEL COMPAN
time s rele vant here to, the Def end aat , THE RIT Z, vl 2 Tobbigh
L Al
the Stnle; of Hiinois
ized to do and doing business in
Hmited Hiability corperation, author
and Michigan, among others,

is
ntiff. DEAN M. TORIUMI, was and
2, At all times ralevant hereto, the Fl;i
a resident of Cook County, Jllinels.

RITZ was the owner of certein real
3 At all times relevant hereto, THE
ch teal estate THE
Drive, Dearborn, Michigan, on whi
estate Tocated ar,300 Town Center
The
certain publlo hotel, commonly knowm 8
RITZ did operate, maintain and cantrol @
on the
f, Dean M. Toriumi, was lawfully
4, On January 14, 2004, the Plaintif
ommodation,
t of said hotel and place of public acc
premises as aforesaid a5 2 paying guss
ndant.
and 45 such, was & business invitee of Defe
the duty of the Defendant to

5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, it was
maintenance and control of their real and
exercise ordinary care in the ownetship,
the personal property mainteined

personal property to See that thelr premises, and
the use of business invitees on the
thereon, were in reagonably safe condition for
property, inchuding the Plaintiff herein,

mi, was in
6. Al sl times hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Torit

ded certain electrical
7. At all times relovant hersio, the Defendant provi
bed behind the nightstand.
fiztures In its ropps, including a fixture located next to the
ta
8. On the date as aforessid, the Plaintiff did reach behind the nightstand
outlet for another
retmove the plug from the outlet so that he could use the electrical
purpose.
ielty,
9, ‘Upon grasping the plug, the Plaintiff was jolted with a shock of electr
which was sufficiently severe to cause him to fall back to the floor,
10. The plug in the hotel room at the time and place aforesaid had bare wites
r the electrical
and was not properly insulated, thus directly causing the Plaintlff to suffe
thock and become [njured.
11. The electrical shock suffered by the Plalntiff as afotesaid was directly and
proximately caused by one or mote of the foregning careless and negligent acts of the
Defendaxt, In violation of its duty as aforesaid:
(8 Failurs to malntain jts premises in a reasonably safe condition;
(5) Failure to maintain its elecsrica! fixtures in 2 reasonably safe

condition;
Case: 1:06-cv-0172 i
06-cv-01720 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/29/06 Page 6 of 9 PageID #6
ina public area

d on the plug to remnain
Allowing bare wires expose knew or
(@ itees, although Defendant
utilized by its business inv ger thereby created;
the dan
should have knawn of
ective plug and
lur e to wa m the Pla int iff that there was & def
(d) Fai
fixturs in his room;
wires on the
ard caused by the exposed
(¢) Failureto eliminate the haz
l cord in the room 88 aforesaid,
electrica
foregoing, the
and pro xit mat e res ult of one or more of the
12 As o direet
body, both
i, suf fer ed div ers e injuries to and about his
Plaintiff, Dean M. Torium
caused and will
2 pep man ent and las ting nature, which have
y, of
internalty and externall
intff has been
y and min d, and as 2 result of which the Pla
in bod
confinus to cause pain
ing to his usual duties and
tin ue to be far the r pre vented and Jimited in attend
and will con
erwise would have
and has los t and wit l in the Sst are lose great gain which he oth
afFairs,
intiff's damage.
made and aequired, all to Pla
nt against
the Pla int ff DE AN M. TORIUMI, preys for judgme
WHEREFORE,
n limited
TON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC., a forsig
Defendant, THE RITZ CARL
this Cowt to
on i ar AMO UDT whi ch is wit hin the jurlsdictional power of
liability corporati
lars ($50,000.00),
by the evi den ce, and in excess of Fifty Thousand Dol
awagd as proven

Bemard Roceanova
Daley & Mohar, P.C.
150 Narth Wacker Drive
Suite 1550
Chicago, Tlinais 60606
(312) 4229995
Fitm No. 36564
Case: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/29/06 Page 7 of 9 vPageID #7
IN THE CIRCUTT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

DEAN M. TORWMI,
Plaintift, NO, 2006 L 000289

v
Please Serve
THE RITZ-CARLTON ROTEL The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, LEC
COMPANY, LLC, c/o Prentice Hall Corporatian
32N, LaSale Street
Defendants. Chicago, 1L
SEMMONS
To each defendant'
is kepeto attached, or
YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the aamplaint (n this case, » eagy of whish
otherwisc file your sppearance, and pay the required fee, in the offles of the Clerk of this Courtat the faliowing Jocation:
Pichard J. Daley Canter, 56 W. Washingtan, Reom 802, Chi¢ago, Iliners 60602,

$0, A JUDGMENT BY
You muzst fite within 30 days after service of thls summons, hat counting the day of service. IF YOU FAlL TO DO
DEFALILT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT
Ta the officer,
Thit summens must be returnod by the oiticer or other person ta Whom 1t was givan for servics, with enddisement of service and
not be
fets, If any, immediately sfter servica. [fservice cannotbe mude, Lhis summons shall be returntd 80 ¢ndorsed: Thiz summons may
erved Tatay than 30 days after Its dnte. v
Wlmafiht‘v M . 2006
Clark of Court
Bermard R Date of sarvice = -

mard Rocaanava (To be insested by officer on Teft with defendant
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C. (e 7o i ndtator ol pser)
Anamey for Plalntiff
150 N, Wacker Drive, Suite 1550
Chicaga, linals 60606
24729999
Attorney No 36564
DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
~y LGO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC COU'R‘I‘/-/V
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 4,
EASTERN DIVISION P
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
U0 0&1”,00 O{UISL
7
o ) 0”% By~
Plaintiffs, ) 2%
] e N h.
-Vs- }
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL ') 06CV1720

COMPANY, L.L.C., ) JUDGE GUZMAN
) MAG.
Defendant. ) - ,:\G DE_N!' (?V\! -
NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL
TO: Bernard Roccanova

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1550
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Noticc of Removal of this action was filed
with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ilinois,
Eastern Division, as Casc No. _ .. on March ___, 2006. A copy of the
Notice of Removal has also been filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Law Division on March __ ., 2006. A copy of the Notice of Removal is
attached hereto.
o ikl
L Robert M. Burke, One of the
Altorneys for Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C.
ROBERT M. BURKE
JOHNSON & BELL, L.TD.,
33 Wesl Monroc Street, Suite 2700
Attorney No. 06347
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) 8.
CQUNTY OF COOK )
LISA A, MORRISON, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and
states that she served a copy of the above and foregoing NOTICE OF FILING
NOTICE OF REMOVAL to all attorneys of record, by depositing a copy of same
in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, this Q’qyflday of March,
2006.
/4, .
T penaltics/as provided by law
Sec. 1-109, 1 certify that the statements
set forth herein are true and correct,
JOHNSON & BELLL, LTD.

Suite 2700
(312) 372-0770
Case: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 2 Filed: 03/29/06 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #4
06CV1720 L COVER SHEET L
JUDGE GUZMAN 1em cenor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or mhcr PAPCTS 85 FEqUirG: b
*.ql Clerls ol Court Tor the purpose of initiatingthe civil docket sheet. (Sh
MAG. DENLOW \,f
(d) PLATNTIFFS FENDANTS
DEAN M. TORTUMI
MAR29 7005 THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY. [.L.C.
%EL W Dfilflsgumy o Residence of First Listed Defenda

{b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintift nt
(RXCEPT IN LS. PI. /\INTIFFCMW (IN US. PLAINTIEE CASE ONLYY
GOUQT] IN LAND CONDEMNATION CA: USE THE LOCATION GF THE
LAND INVOLVED
() Atorncy's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) ‘Atiormags (I Known)

Bernard Rocuanova, Duley & Moban, P.C. Robert M. Burke/Johnsan & Belt, Lid,
130 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, linois 60606 Chicago, Tllinois 60602
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION {Place an X in One o Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES;¥lace an X" ir One Box for Plaintift
(For Diversity Cases Only) ‘and One Box for Defendans)
PTF F I
I us. Govenmuen s Federal Question Citieen of This Stale @1 fi\ Ingorporaled or I ipal Mlace Dn Da
Plaintiff {U.S. Government Not a Party) of Business [n This Stale
[ us qoveromen (W4 Diversiny Citizen of Anwtber State [ |2 [ |2 ncorporaied and Principal Place 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties D D of Busincss [n Another Sute D E
i n ltem 111y
CittemorSubjsctofa []3 [ 3 Forsign Nation e O
Foreign Country
1Y, NATURE OF SUI'T (Place an “X" in Onc Box Goly)
CUNTRACT TORTS FORFEITURK/PENALTY| BANKRUPTCY. OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance it Agricutare [Tz Appeat 25 L5 154 L300 51 espprtion
130 M 626 e Funsd & i 410 Ancinust
130 Milles At 315 Auplan: raodua Med Malpractics | [To2s rug Reloted Scizure | (023 Withdrawal 430 Bnks and Binking
190 Soganiablo Insuument Liabitity J3003 Forsomal Dijury - of Prupenty 21 LS 881 IRUSC ST 450 Commeree 117 Reosins
150 Rovurery of Overpament | (120 assanle, Libel& Venduct Lisbility o3¢ Ligwer Laws T 2t Doparmation
& nforcementof Jiudpmeat Slamibar 6K Ashestos Perss Jodt RR. & Tk PROPERTY RIGH 710 Racketeas dnflucined il
1951 Medseans Act 3330 Federal limplayers™ Injury Tevsluct J630 Airline B 520 oy Conupn Ocgntons
352 Rosoery
of Letauhed Linbility Lisbiliy 1660 Occupinionl ol I,x”f:* o 1480 Cosumer C
Student Loans (exel. vet s | 340 Maine PERSONAL PROPERTY Sty Hoallh D 400 Ciblorsinto
03358 Reaoveryof Ovorgyment | []345 Marine Pt Ji7 Cnher Fraud oo cnber [0 Tadan
of Vetesn Lielity [371 Truth in Lendimg, 550 Seeunty/C onnudit
LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 75 Costomer Challenge
M. 180 Stockhalders (356 Mot Vehicle
(355 Motor Vel
Produer Linbility
D'\Mi Other Persainal
Puopeity Danage Dfl {1 Eair | hor Stidnrds et sna (1395
12115¢ 3470
[J591 Aggiculurl ets
(193 Contrawr Pradoct Libilivy 345 property Damage A e Black Lung (923,
196 Franchuse [®D366: Other Persoml 1) Procust Lishility 0720 Lebon Mgt Relations [Js63 PIWCDIWW (405(2)) [T502 buonomic Sizbilization Aet
%97 finviranniental Matters
REALPROPERTY CIVIL RICH TS FRISONER FETITIONS| [CIse4 s510 Title X V1 591 Lzniuy Allocation Act
3730 Laboi/ Mgt Reportiing [los ksl (303¢g)) 395 Ficedonn of Infurntion A
216 Land Condemnation 141 vaing D510 Mations to Vacate & Disclosure Act 000 Appt of
0740 Ry 1 abor Act FEDERAL
TAX SUITS
220 Foreclisure
i
230 Rent 1ease & Ieuiment
Senlency
Tlahgas Comus: Defermination Undor
240 (onts 1o Land Aceommodations | (1530 Genesal 23790 Oother Labior Litigation 0870 Toutes (L1 5. Plaintitf Fquil Access 10 histce
245 Ton Product Lishility 444 Wolfare: 1535 Death Foualty
o Difendint) 7950 Consttutonaliy o
290 A1l Other Roal Property 445 A, - -Cployment | []540 Mandamus & Other CJ791 Empl. Rat Inc. 7t tks—hisd party
Stal Stautes
[1590 Other Stacoty Actions
1416 ADA - Gther st it Righus Seeurily A 26USC 7609
1440 Other Civit Rights | (1525 Prison Condition
Y. ORIGIN {PLACE AN "X IN ONE BOX ONLY} al 1o Dustrict

Teansferred from lu e from
1! original 12 Renoved from [J? Remuamded from [J94 Reinsintedor [T]s avother distriet 6 Multidistrice (=i l|»‘lu sirule
Proceeding State Coart Agpeliate Court Reopencd Gpesify) 1.irigation e,
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (pnter 1.5, Civil Statute under which you are filing and write VII, PREVIOUS BANKRUPTCY MATTERS (For nutureof
a bricf staement of cause.) Suit 422 and 423 enter the case number and judge for any assooiated
bankruptey wier perviously adjudicaied by i judge of this Court. Use s
Title 28 U.8.C. Sectiony 1332 and 1441 sepirate altachment if necessary)
VI REQUESTED [N [TICTTRCK IF TS 15 A CLARS ACTION PEMAND S THFECK VES only 1T Gemandod m complam,
CUMPLAIN UNDLR RGP 23 Jyes N
1X. This case {=]is not a refiling of s previously dismissed nction.
s wetliing of case number . previewsly dismissed by Judge

GATE EIS TORNEY O RICOR
VTVit
March #2 2006
Lo
U.8, DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOILS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM
NOTE: In order to appear befere this Court an attorney must either be a member in good
standing of this Court’s general bar or be granted Ieave to appear pro hac vice as provided for
by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.
In the Matter of 06CV1720

DEAN M. TORIUMI JUDGE GUZMAN
. MAG. DENLOWi _
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C.

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNLEY FOR:
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY. L.L.CJf Iy LE D

Map
2 8 2006
NAME (Type or print) M

g et WURT
Robert M. Burke
SIGNATURE (Use clectronic signature if the appearance form is filed clectronically)
s Robert M. Burke
FIRM
Johnsen & Bell, Lid.
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATR/ZIP
1D NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELLPHONL NUMBER
6187403 (312) 372-0770
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL TN THIS CASE? ves[v|
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASL? YFS
ARL YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT'S TRIAL BAR?
1 THIS CASL REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNLEY? No[]
IE THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASU, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS,
RETAINED COunstL[_] APPOINTED counseL[_]

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTI .

ATTORNEY APPEAR2 06CV1720
NOTE: In order to appear beforc this Court an attorn *‘:\%GEDEG ht‘jLZ Cl;’l\leN
standing of this Court’s gencral bar or ted Jeas -
by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14. E’D - 0 - - = -
In the Matter of
TN MAR 2 9 2006 Case Number:
DEAN M. TORIUMI "Vlm
IAEL W. DOBEN,
ve CLERK, U8, DIgTRGT CQSURT
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C..
AN APPEARANCL IS HIEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:
THE RITZ-CARLTON [HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C.
NAME (Type or print)

Eydic R. Glassman
SIGNATURL (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed clectronically)
s/ Eydie R. Glassman
FIRM
Johnson & Bell, Ltd,
STREET ADDREES
CITY/STATE/ZIP
Chicago, [Hinos 60603
ID NUMBER (SEL ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER
6277536 (312) 372-0770
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSE]L IN THIS CASE? YESD N(J
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSLL IN THIS CASL? YES D N()
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT'S TRIAL BAR? YLS I:I NO
IF THIS CASE REACHLS TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS T11L TRIAL ATTORNEY? YESD NO
IF THIS [8 A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THA'T DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.
RETAINED COUNSL‘LD APPOINTED COUNSI‘ILD

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORT!

ATTORNEY APpEAR: 06CV1720
JUDGE GUzMAN
NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attor MAG, DENLOW
standing of this Court’s general bar or be granted leave
v pmm. o - — B
by Local Rules 83,12 through 83.14. FI -
1.
v
[n the Matter of N L_Eu Number:
DEAN M. TORIUMI R2p
V-
TIHE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C.

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY TIE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C.

Timothy R. Couture
SIGNATURE (Use clectronic signature il‘Wflmflh)
s/ Timothy R. Couture /( —
\
IIRM
Johnsen & Bell, Ltd.
STREFT ADDRESS
CITY/STATR/ZIP
1D NUMBER (SEL [TEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONL NUMBER.
6283943 (312) 372-0770
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSLL [N THIS CASE? YESl:]
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSLL IN TIUS CASE? YF.SD
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR” YF.SE’ N()
11 11 CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THL TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES[| ~No[v]
1F THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.
RETAINED COUNSEL]_ | APPOINTED COUNSEL[_]

FI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC CO! LED
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS)AR 29 2008
EASTERN DIVISION q
DEAN M. TORIUMI, ¢ Mi LW,W) D0BeiNg

% LERK, .6, STRGT Gounr
Plaintiffs, )
vs-
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL 06CV1720
COMPANY, L.L.C., JUDGE GUZMAN
MAG. DENLOW
Defendant, f e
JURY DEMAND
Defendant, THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., hereby demands a
trial by jury.
DATED: March 29, 2006
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD,
.!iobcrt M. Burke, éftorney for Defendant,

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
Rabert M. Burke
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.
Attomeys for Defendant
Suite 2700
33 West Monroe Strect
Chicago, [llincis 60603
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois — CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5
Eastern Division
Dean M Toriumi
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:06—cv—01720
Honorable Ronald A. Guzman
The Ritz—Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, March 31, 2006:
MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for 4/21/2006
at 09:30 AM. The Court orders the parties to appear for an initial appearance and status
hearing. All parties shall refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's requirements for the
initial appearance as outlined in Judge Guzman's case management procedures, which can
be found at: www.1lnd.uscourts.gov.Mailed notice(jms, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
-vs- )
) Judge Ronald Guzman
COMPANY, L.L.C., ) Magistrate Judge Denlow
)
Defendant. )
ANSWER
NOW COMES Defendant, THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,
L.L.C., by and through its attorneys, JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., and for its
answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, states the following:
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant THE RITZ, was a
foreign limited liability corporation, authorized to do and ding business in the
States of Illinois and Michigan, among others.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., admits the
allegations contained in paragraphl of Plaintiff's Complaint.
2. At all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, was
and is a resident of Cook County, Illinois
Answer: Upon information and belief, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C., admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
3. At all times relevant hereto, THE RITZ, was the owner of certain
real estate located at 300 Town Center Drive, Dearborn, Michigan, on which
real estate THE RITZ did operate, maintain and control a certain public hotel,
commonly known as The Ritz-Carlton Dearborn.

Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. admits that it
operated a hotel and maintained or caused to be maintained the hotel at the
time and place alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, and further admits that the hotel
was known as the Ritz-Carlton Dearborn Hotel, but denies each and every
allegation contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint.
4. On January 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, was lawfully
on the premises as aforesaid as a paying guest of said hotel and place of public
accommodation, and as such, was a business invitee of Defendant.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., admits the factual
allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint but denies the legal conclusion
pled regarding Plaintiff’s legal status as a business invitee and moves that said
allegation be stricken.
5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, it was the duty of the
Defendant to exercise ordinary care in the ownership, maintenance and control
of their real and personal property to see that their premises, and the personal
property maintained thereon, were in reasonably safe condition for the use of
business invitees on the property, including the Plaintiff herein.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. admits those duties
imposed upon it by law but denies that Plaintiff has properly alleged the duty
then and there owed by it.
6. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi,
was in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. denies the
allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint.

7. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant provided certain
electrical fixtures in its rooms, including a fixture located next to the bed
behind the nightstand.
provided certain electrical fixtures in its room, but denies the remaining
8. On the date as aforesaid, the Plaintiff did reach behind the
nightstand to remove the plug from the outlet so that he cold use the electrical
outlet for another purpose.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., has insufficient
knowledge regarding the truthfulness of the allegations contained in paragraph
8 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore, denies said allegations and requires
strict proof thereof.
9. Upon grasping the plug, the Plaintiff was jolted with a shock of
electricity, which was sufficiently severe to cause him to fall back to the floor.
Answer: Based upon information and belief, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C., denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
10. The plug in the hotel room at the time and place aforesaid had
bare wires and was not properly insulated, thus directly causing the Plaintiff to
suffer the electrical shock and become injured.
Complaint.
11. The electrical shock suffered by the Plaintiff as aforesaid was

directly and proximately caused by one or more of the foregoing careless and
negligent acts of the Defendant, in violation of its duty as aforesaid:
(@) Failure to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe

condition;
(b) Failure to maintain its electrical fixtures in a

reasonably safe condition;
(c) Allowing bare wires exposed on the plug to remain in

a public area utilized by its business invitees,
although Defendant knew or should have known of
the danger thereby created;
(d) Failure to warn the Plaintiff that there was a defective

plug and fixture in his room;
(e) Failure to eliminate the hazard caused by the exposed

wires on the electrical cord in the room as aforesaid.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., denies the
allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint, including each
and every allegation contained in subparagraphs (a) through (e) inclusive.
12. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing,
the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, suffered diverse injuries to and about his body,
both internally and externally, of a permanent and lasting nature, which have
caused and will continue to cause pain in body and mind, and as a result of
which the Plaintiff has been and will continue to be further prevented and
limited in attending to his usual duties and affairs, and has lost and will in the
future lose great gain which he otherwise would have made and acquired, all to
the Plaintiff's damage.
L.L.C., denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against it in the amount
4
sought or in any sum whatsoever, and further prays that judgment and costs
be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
L.L.C., by and through its attorneys, JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., and for its first
affirmative defense to Plaintiff's cause of action, plead in the alternative to its
answer, states that the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, was careless and
negligent in one or more or all of the following respects, which proximately
caused the injuries and damages of which he complains:
(a) Carelessly and negligently touched the metal element

of an electrical plug;
(b) Was otherwise careless and negligent.
L.L.C., prays for judgment and costs of suit, or in the alternative, prays that no
non-economic damages be awarded and for a reduction of any economic
damages awarded to the Plaintiff in proportion to the percentage of Plaintiff’'s
own contributory fault, or in the alternative, prays that all damages be reduced
in proportion to Plaintiff’s own contributory fault.
By: /s/Robert M. Burke

One of the Attorneys for The Ritz-
Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
ROBERT M. BURKE
Attorney for Defendant
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No.: 06347

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 06 C 1720
vs-
Judge Ronald Guzman
COMPANY, L.L.C., Magistrate Judge Denlow
Defendant.
AFFIDAVIT
Robert M. Burke, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states that he is
one of the attorneys for Defendant, THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, in
the above-captioned matter, that he is informed as to the statements of
insufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truthfulness of certain allegations
contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, and that on the basis thereof, Defendant denies
said allegations and requires strict proof thereof.

One of the Attorneys for
Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

before me this day of
, 2006.
Notary Public
ROBERT M. BURKE
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., #06347
Telephone: (312) 372-0770

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
-vs- )

COMPANY, L.L.C.,
) Magistrate Judge Denlow

)
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF FILING

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Please take notice that on the 4% day of April, 2006, Defendant, The Ritz-
Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., filed with the United States District Court, for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois, its Answer, a copy of which is attached hereto and served upon
you.

Robert M. Burke
Chicago, IL 60603
312/372-0770
Atty. No. 6347
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned, a non-attorney, on oath states she caused to be served

the attached documents upon the above-named attorneys at their respective
addresses on April 4, 2006, by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail located at 33
West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603, proper postage prepaid and affixed
thereon. .
Under phnalties as providled by law pursuant to ILL.REV.

STAT. CHAP. 110 §1-169, certify that the statements set
forth herein are true and correct.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good
standing of this Court’s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for
In the Matter of Case Number: 06 C 1720

DEAN M. TORIUMI
_vs-
THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C.

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:
DEAN M. TORIUMI, PLAINTIFF

Bernard Roccanova
SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)
s/ Bernard Roccanova
FIRM
Daley & Moban, P.C.
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP
Chicago, Hlinois 60606
1D NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER
2358654 (312) 422-9999
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES[]
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES
IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES N()E‘
IF THIS IS A CREIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.
RETANED cOUNSEL]| APpomNTED counsEL]]



Dean M. Toriumi v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

Dean M. Toriumi, Plaintiff

Blake A. Barron
SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)
s/ Blake A. Barron
FIRM
Daley & Mohan P.C.
STREET ADDRESS
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1550
CITY/STATE/ZIP
Chicago, IL 60606
1D NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER

6280940 312/422-9999
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YESD
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES D
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YESD
1F THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES[ | No[/]
IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.
RETAINED COUNSEL EI APPOINTED COUNSEL D



Dean Toriumi v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC

Dean M. Toriumi, Plaintiff

Mary Louise Kandyba
SIGNATURIE (Use electronic signature 1t the appearance form is filed electronically)
s/ Mary Louise Kandyba
FIRM
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
STREET ADDRESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP
Chicago, IL. 60606
ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER
06180752 312-422-9999
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? VESD NO
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YESD NO
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES N()[:]
I¥ THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES NOD
1F THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.
RETAINED C()UNSF,I,‘:I APPOINTED COUNSEL |:]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
v )
COMPANY, L.L.C, ) Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
)
Defendant. )
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
NOW COMES the Defendant, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., (hereinafter “Ritz-
Carlton™), by and through one of its attorneys, Robert M. Burke of JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.,
and moves this Honorable Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a), to transfer venue to the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, and in support thereof state as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. Jurisdiction is properly vested in both the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois and Defendant, a
corporation, is a citizen of the states of Delaware, Virginia and Maryland. The occurrence
involved in this action took place in Dearborn, Michigan. Defendant does business in both
Illinois and Michigan.
VENUE
2. Venue is proper in both the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, and the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of
Michigan, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a)(1) & (2). Ritz-Carlton does business in Cook
County, Illinois, and therefore, resides in Illinois for venue purposes. Ritz-Carlton also does
business in Wayne County, Michigan and therefore, resides in Michigan for venue purposes.
Further, the incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Dearborn, Wayne County,
Michigan.
VENUE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO MICHIGAN
3. Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, filed a one (1) count Complaint against Ritz-Carlton
averring that on January 14, 2004, Plaintiff allegedly sustained personal injuries from an
electrical shock, upon removing a plug from an electrical outlet on the premises of Ritz-Carlton
located at 300 Town Center Drive, Dearborn, Michigan. A copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated herein by reference.
4. Ritz-Carlton has filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint denying all of the
negligent conduct attributed to it and denying that its conduct caused or contributed to cause
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages. A copy of Ritz-Carlton’s Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit
“B”, and is incorporated herein by reference.
5. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) provides:
For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district
court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might
have been brought.
28 US.C.A. § 1404(a) (West 2005, Revised Edition).
6. Federal Courts employ a three-part test in determining whether to transfer a case
under § 1404(a). Specifically, a court may transfer such a case if the moving party shows that: 1)
venue is proper in the district where the action was originally filed; 2) venue and jurisdiction
would be proper in the transferee district; and 3) the transfer will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses as well as the interests of justice. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d
217, 219 No. 3 (7“‘ Cir. 1986); Hanley v. Omarc, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 770, 774 (N.D. IIl. 1998)
(hereinafter “Hanley I); Sanders v. Franklin, 25 F.Supp.2d 855, 857 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Vandeveld
v. Christoph, 877 F.Supp. 1160, 1167 (N.D. Ill. 1995); Habitat Wallpaper and Blinds, Inc. v.
K.T. Scott Limited Partnership, 807 F. Supp. 470, 474 (N.D. IIl. 1992).
7. In determining whether a motion under § 1404(a) should be granted, the court
must seek to promote the efficient administration of justice and not merely the private interests
of the parties. Id. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 221; Karrels v. Adolph Coors Co., 699 F.Supp. 172 (N.D.
111 1988); Id. Hanley I, 6 F.Supp.2d at 774 (citing North Shore Gas Co. v. Salomon, Inc., 896
F.Supp. 786, 791 (N.D. Ill. 1995)). The determination of whether a case should be transferred
pursuant to § 1404(a) is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. (citing Heller
Financial Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7" Cir. 1989) and Coffey v. Van
Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7‘h Cir. 1986)).
8. In applying the requisite analysis, it is apparent that this Court should order a
transfer of venue. First, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(a)(1), because Ritz-Carlton
does business in Cook County, Illinois, and therefore, resides in Illinois for venue purposes.
Venue is also proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(a)(1), because Ritz-Carlton also does business in Dearborn,
Wayne County, Michigan, and therefore, resides in Michigan for venue purposes.
9. Moreover, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(a)(2), as the incident giving rise to
Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Dearborn, Wayne County, Michigan.

10. The third and final part of the three-part test under § 1404(a) includes
consideration of the following three factors: (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the
convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interests of justice. Id. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219; Id.
Heller, 883 F.2d at 1293; Grossman v. Smart, No. 95-1178, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 38339, *3
(7™ Cir. December 18, 1995).

11. First, when evaluating the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the court
should consider: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the
relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the witnesses; and (5) the
convenience to the parties of litigating in the respective forums. Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Merit
Contracting, Inc., 99 F.3d 248, 254 (7" Cir. 1996); Id. Hanley 1, 6 F.Supp.2d at 774 (citing Id.
North Shore Gas Co., 896 F.Supp. at 791); College Craft Companies, Ltd. v. Perry, 889 F.Supp.
1052, 1054 (N.D. IIL. 1995).
12. The Hanley I case involved an ERISA action, and in such a case, the plaintiffss
choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference, particularly where the chosen forum is the
plaintiff's home forum. /d. Hanley I, 6 F.Supp.2d at 774-75. “However, where the plaintiff's
chosen forum lacks any significant contact with the underlying cause of action, the plaintiffs
chosen forum is entitled to less deference.” Id. Hanley I, 6 F.Supp.2d at 775 (citing KAW Transp.
Co., No. 96 C 7935, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3355, *5 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 1997) and Central
States, S.E. & S.W. Areas Pension Fund v. Gelock Transfer Line, Inc., No. 90 C 4317, 1991 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 3089, *3 (N.D. IIl. Feb. 26, 1991)). “Further, while a plaintiff's choice of forum is
an important consideration in determining whether a motion to transfer should be granted, it is
not absolute and will not defeat a well-founded motion to transfer.” Espino v. Top Draw Freight
System, Inc., 713 F.Supp. 1243, 1244 (N.D. Ill. 1989) (citing General Accident Insurance v.
Traveler's Corp., 666 F. Supp. 1203, 1206 (N.D. Ill. 1987) and Associated Mills, Inc. v. Rush-
Hampton Industries, 588 F. Supp. 1164, 1166 (N.D. I11. 1984)).
13. In the Hanley I case, the plaintiffs’ chosen forum was Illinois, which was also
plaintiffs' home forum. Id. Hanley I, 6 F.Supp.2d at 775. However, the Court held that Illinois
lacked any significant contacts with the underlying cause of action. /d. It found that New Jersey
was the situs of all material events relevant to the underlying action, and that the only relevant
contact to Illinois was that Illinois was where the union’s welfare and pension funds were
administered. Jd. The Court thereby held that the fact that Illinois was plaintiffs' chosen forum
was entitled to some, but not substantial, deference. /d. Rather, the fact that New Jersey was the
situs of all material events related to the underlying cause of action was weighed in favor of
transfer to New Jersey. /d.
The Court in Hanley I ultimately granted defendant’s motion to transfer venue to New
Jersey pursuant to § 1404(a), where New Jersey was the situs of all material events, New Jersey
was a more convenient forum for the witnesses identified by the parties, the defendants were
from New Jersey, and New Jersey was the forum closer to the action. Hanley I, 6 F.Supp.2d at
777. This was despite the fact that Illinois was the plaintifs chosen forum. Further, the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, later denied Hanley’s motion to reconsider the
transfer to New Jersey. Hanley v. Omare, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 778, 779 (N.D. IIl. 1998).
14. The principle that a plaintiff's chosen forum is entitled to less deference where it
lacks any significant contact with the underlying cause of action has been applied in personal
injury cases as well. In the case of Cunningham v. Cunningham, 477 F. Supp. 632, (N.D. Il
1979), for example, the plaintiff, an Illinois resident, brought suit against the defendant, a
Michigan resident, for injuries arising out of a shooting incident in Michigan. The shooting
occurred during a weekend when the plaintiff was visiting the defendant pursuant to a court
order involving visitation rights. Defendant moved to transfer the action to a district court in
Michigan. The court held that venue would be proper in either Illinois or Michigan in the
districts where the litigants resided. The court further held that, because the case could have
been brought in either its district or the proposed transferee district, the court had the power to
transfer the case. Because most of the witnesses resided in Michigan and because plaintiff’s
expert would likely appear voluntarily if the case were transferred, a transfer of the action to
Michigan would best serve the convenience of the witnesses and the interests of justice.
Consequently, the court directed the clerk to transfer the case to the specified district in
Michigan.
15. Furthermore, federal courts throughout the United States have looked at the situs
of operative facts as a significant factor in determining whether a case should be transferred.
These cases have consistently held that a plaintiff’s forum choice is diminished, where the
operative facts, giving rise to the action, occur outside of the forum selected by the plaintiff. See
generally, Cameli v. WNEP-16 The News Station, 134 F. Supp. 2d 403, 405 (E.D. Pa. 2001);
Gaskins v. Amtrak, No. 00- 5144, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3962, *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2001);
Leinberger v. Webster, 66 F.R.D. 28, 34 (ED.N.Y 1975) (citations omitted) (stating "plaintiff's
choice of forum is not as rigidly adhered to if all the operative facts occurred elsewhere"). Even
more to the point, one court has held that "where the operative facts are concentrated in a
specific district other than the district in which plaintiff has sued, the action should be transferred
to that district, notwithstanding plaintiff's choice of forum." Ravenswood Inv. Co. v. Bishop
Capital Corp., No. 04 CV 9266, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1388 (S.D.N.Y. January 31, 2005).
16. Applied to the present case, while Plaintiff resides in Illinois, Michigan is the
situs of all material events related to this cause of action, as it is the location of this incident
giving rise to this premises liability action. The subject property, electrical fixture and employee
witnesses of the Ritz-Carlton are all located in Michigan. For example, Ritz-Carlton’s Loss
Prevention Manager, who spoke to the Plaintiff about the incident and his alleged injuries,
resides in Dearborn Michigan. Alison Peters, Ritz-Carlton’s Director of Housekeeping, who is
believed to have information relative to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.’s policies and
procedures at the involved hotel, also resides in Dearborn, Michigan. Sharman Kinney, the
Assistant Front Office Manager at the time of the occurrence, is believed to have spoken to
Plaintiff, to have offered medical attention, and to have information regarding Plaintiff’s
declination of any medical care. While, Ms. Kinney’s current address is presently unknown, it is
believed she resides in Virginia. See Defendant’s Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure attached hereto to as
Exhibit “C”.
Joseph Hutchison, the Director of Loss Prevention at the subject hotel, 17032 Coral
Gables Street, Southfield, Michigan, is believed to have information relative to the hotel’s
policies and procedures and investigation into the subject incident. Hedy Tessler, the Concierge
at the subject hotel, 5000 Mirror Lake Court, West Bloomfield, Michigan, is believed to have
spoken to the Plaintiff and to have taken possession of the involved plug from the Plaintiff. Dr.
Mark Gonzalez, at the University of Illinois Medical Center, is believed to have examined the
Plaintiff and to have some information relative to the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages.
Id. Defendant’s Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure.

Consequently, Plaintiff’s choice of Illinois as a forum should be given little deference
and the fact that the situs of this matter is in Michigan weighs heavily in favor of transferring this
action to the Eastern District of Michigan.
17. The next factor considered in this analysis is the relative ease of access to sources
of proof. Id. Roberts, 99 F.3d at 254. As stated above, the relevant sources of proof would
primarily include the premises, the electrical fixture and the employees who witnessed events
immediately subsequent to the occurrence and who have knowledge of Ritz-Carlton’s policies
and procedures. All such sources of proof are in Michigan.
18. "The convenience of witnesses is often viewed as the most important factor in the
transfer balance." Id. Hanley I, 6 F.Supp.2d at 775 (quoting Rose v. Franchetti, 713 F.Supp.
1203, 1214 (N.D. Il 1989)). “The determination of whether a particular venue is more
convenient for the witnesses should not turn on which party produces a longer witness list.” 7d.
(citing Chemical Waste Management, 870 F.Supp. 870, 876 (N.D. Il 1994)). “Rather, the court
must look to the nature and quality of the witnesses' testimony with respect to the issues of the
case.” Id. (citing Vandeveld, 877 F.Supp. at 1168). “The court must also consider whether these
witnesses will be subject to compulsory process and what it will cost to obtain the attendance of
willing witnesses.” Bally Mfg. Corp. v. Kane, 698 F.Supp. 734, 738 (N.D. IIl. 1988). See also
Cunningham, 477 F.Supp. at 632, discussed in detail supra.
19. Based upon information and belief, the Plaintiff is likely the only Illinois resident
who will be called as a witness to this occurrence. While the Plaintiff will probably name his
colleague, Dr. Gonzalez, and possibly an Illinois expert witness, one should not give undue
weight to the fact a plaintiff’s treating physician or expert has an office in a plaintiff’s chosen
forum, because to do so would allow a plaintiff to easily frustrate the forum non conveniens
principle by selecting as a witness a treating physician or expert in what would, in reality, be an
inconvenient forum. Washington v. Illinois Power Co., 144 111.2d 395, 401-402, 581 N.E.2d 644,
646 (1991).
In sharp contrast, almost all of Ritz-Carlton’s relevant employees, who have knowledge
of the occurrence, still work and reside in Michigan. Furthermore, there may be other
unidentified employees of the hotel, as well as outside contractors, with knowledge of the
occurrence, relevant procedures and the electrical fixture, giving rise to this suit, who live and
work in Michigan. Moreover, upon information and belief, Plaintiff was examined in Michigan
after the occurrence.
As such, this factor also weighs heavily in favor of transferring this matter to the Eastern
District of Michigan. Genden v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., 621 F.Supp. 780,
782 (N.D. IlI. 1985).
20. The third and final factor of the three-part transfer of venue test, the interest of
Jjustice, also considers three factors. The "interest of justice" component "embraces traditional
notions of judicial economy, rather than the private interests of the litigants and their witnesses."
Id. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 221; Hanley 1, 6 F.Supp.2d at 776 (quoting TIG Ins., Co. v. Brighily
Galvanized Prods., Inc., 911 F.Supp. 344, 346 (N.D. 111.1996)). “It includes such considerations
as (1) the speed at which the case will proceed to trial; (2) the court's familiarity with the
applicable law; (3) the desirability of resolving controversies in their locale; and (4) the relation
of the community to the occurrence at issue.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-509
(1947); Id. Heller, 883 F.2d at 1293; Id. Hanley I, 6 F.Supp.2d at 777 (citing Symons Corp. v.
Southern Forming & Supply, Inc., 954 F.Supp. 184, 187 (N.D. 111.1997)). “The administration of
Jjustice is served more efficiently when the action is litigated in the forum that is “closer to the
action.”" Id. (quoting Paul v. Land's End, Inc., 742 F.Supp. 512, 514 (N.D. II1. 1990)).
21. First, the parties are more likely to receive a speedy trial in the Eastern District of
Michigan than in the Northern District of Illinois, as civil cases filed in the latter forum take a
median time of 5.03 months longer to litigate from time of filing to trial, than those filed in the
former. See statistics for each district attached hereto as Exhibits “D” and “E”, as obtained from
the U.S. Courts’ website (www.uscourts.gov), and incorporated herein by reference. Therefore,
this factor also weighs heavily in favor of transferring this case. When combined with the first
two factors, the interest of justice clearly requires the transfer of this case to the Eastern District
of Michigan.
22. Moreover, there should be no dispute that Michigan law governs the substantive
issues raised in this case since the occurrence took place in Michigan. See, for example, Ivanhoe
Fin.,, Inc. v. Highland Banc Corp, No. 03 C 7336, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2966, (N.D. IIl.
February 25, 2004), where the court recognized that Illinois courts use the Restatement's "most
significant relationship test" for choice of law in tort cases. Id. Esser v. Mclntyre, 169 1ll. 2d
292, 661 N.E.2d 1138, 1141, 214 IIL. Dec. 693 (1996). The test requires a court to evaluate the
following factors to determine which state’s law governs: (a) the place where the injury
occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicile,
residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties; and (d) the
place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. Id. The Ivanhoe Court,
quoting the Second Restatement of Conflicts of Laws § 145 (1971), further noted that
the factors are to be weighed "according to their relative importance with respect to the particular
issue" and in accordance with the principles applicable to all choice of law decisions. Id. Illinois
courts generally accord the place of injury factor the greatest weight under this test. Id., e.g.,
Ivanhoe, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2966 at *10 (citing Esser, 661 N.E2d at 1141)).
Here, the Eastern District of Michigan is more familiar with Michigan law than the
Northern District of Illinois and there should be no dispute that Michigan law governs the
substantive issues raised in this case since the occurrence took place in Michigan. Further,
because this premises liability case occurred at a hotel in Michigan, the residents of Michigan
have a greater interest in resolving this controversy than do the residents of Illinois. As such, this
factor weighs heavily in favor of transferring this case.
23. Applying all of the aforementioned factors to the facts of the present case, transfer
to the Eastern District of Michigan would be the correct and just result. Michigan is a proper
venue, it is more convenient for the parties and the witnesses, it is the situs of all material events
herein, it is the local setting of the occurrence, and the interests of justice clearly favor the
Eastern District of Michigan, as this case is more likely to receive a speedy trial by a Court that
generally disposes of matters in a more-timely fashion and is well-versed in Michigan law.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., moves this
Honorable Court for an Order granting its Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan.
Respectfully submitted, this 13th day of April 2006
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.,
By: /s/ Robert M. Burke

One of its Attorneys
Mr. Robert M. Burke
Mr. Timothy M. Couture
Ms. Eydie R. Glassman
33 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2700
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
11
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 1 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 4 of 9
K COUNTY, ILLINOIS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COO LAW DIV. ISTON
COUNTY DEPARTMENT,
M. TORIGME, ;
DEAN
Plaintiff, )
) NO.
v.
) 2006L 000289
)
THE RITZ-CARLTON BOTEL ;
COMPANY, L.L.C.y
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
TORIUMI, by and dlmig‘h hi;;

Now comes the Plaintiff, DEAN M.
against the Defendant, ‘[‘Hfl R!?L-
Daley & Mohan, P.C., and for his Complaint
“THE RITZ, states ag fol!w %) ’
GARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LL.C., hercinafter
RITZ, was joéxg?é
1. At all fimes relevant hereto, the Defendant, THE
Hiinois
to do and doing business in the Sm:s of
Hiited liability corporation, authorized

UM], wes and s
2, At all times relevant hereto, the Pl;imifl‘, DEAN M. TORI
a resident of Cook County, Tllinols.
At all times relevant heteto, THE RITZ was the owner of certain real
3
, Michigan, on which teal estate THE
estate Tocated ar,300 Town Center Drive, Dearborn
, commonly known as The
RITZ did operate, maintain and cantrol a cextaip publle hotel
umi, was lawfully on the
4, On January 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Tori
and place of public accommodation,

premises as aforesaid a5 2 paying guest nf said hote!
and as such, was & business invitee of Defendant.

the Defendsnt to
s At all times heretnafter mentioned, it was the duty of
e and control of their real and
exercise ordinary care in the ownership, maintenanc
the personal property maintained
personal property to See that thely premises, and
of business invitees on the
theteon, were in reasonebly safe condition for the use
property, including the Plaintiff herein.
6. Atsll times hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, was in

cal
7. At all times relovant hereto, the Defendant provided certain electri
ni ghtstand.
fixtures In ite rooms, including a fixture located next to the bed behind the
8. On the date es aforesaid, the Plaintff did reach behind the nightstand to
remove the plug from the outlet 5o that he could use the electrical outlet for another
purpose.
9. Upon grasping the plug, the Plaintlff was jolted with a shack of eleatricity,
which was sufficiently severe to cause him to fall back to the floor.
10. The plug in the hotel room at the time and place aforesaid had bare wires
and was not properly insulated, thus directly oausing the Flaintiff to suffer the electrical
shock and become [njured.
11, The electrical shock suffered by the Plalntiff as afotesaid was directly and
proximately caused by one or mote of the foregoing careless and negligent acts of the
(# Failure to malntain jts premises in a reasonably safe condition;
(b) Failure to paintain iis electrical fixtures in a coasonably safe

condition;
Case -CV- g 3 of 3 PagelD #:43
cv-01720 Document #: 14-2 Filed: 04/13/06 Page
B Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 1 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 6 of 9
ina public area

osed on the plug to remain knew or
[O) Allowing bare wires cxp end ant
invitees, although Def
utilized by its business
should have known of
ive plug and
iff that there wes & defect
(@) Failure to wam the Plaint
d wires on the
lur eto eli min ato the haz ard caused by the sxpose
(¢) Fal
electrical cord in the room 88 aforesaid,
, the
or mere of the foregoing
As u dir ect and proxitmate result of one
12,
body, both
i, suf fer ed div ers e injuries to and about his
Plaintiff, Dean M. Torium
ch have caused and will
all y, of 2 pes man ent and lasting nature, whi
internally aud extern
ch the Pleintiff has been
cau se pai n in bed y and mind, end as 2 result of whi
continue to
ies and
ip attending to bis usual dut
will con tin ue to be fur ther prevented and limited
and
erwise would have
has lost and will in the fst ore lose great gain which he oth
affaire, and
's damage.
cade and nequired, all to Plaintiff
ys for judgment ageinst
ER EF OR E, the Pla int iff , DEAN M, TORIUMI, pre
WH
ited
Z CA RL TO N HO TE L CO MPANY, LLC., 2 forelgn lim
Defendant, THE RIT
power of this Court 10
por ati on in an amo vnt whi ch Is within the jurisdictional
[iabillty cot
0,000.00),
the evi den ce, and in exc ess of Fity Thousand Dollars ($5
award as proven by

Bermard Roceanova
Daley & Mohax, P.C.
Suite 1550
Chicago, Blinois 60606
(312) 422-9999
Firm No. 36564
Case: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 14-3 Filed: 04/13/06 Page 1 of 6 PagelD #:45

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
-vs- )
COMPANY, L.L.C.,
) Magistrate Judge Denlow
)
Defendant. )
ANSWER

L.L.C., by and through its attorneys, JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., and for its
answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, states the following:
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant THE RITZ, was a

foreign limited liability corporation, authorized to
do and ding business in the
States of Illinois and Michigan, among others,
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., admits the

allegations contained in paragraphl of Plaintiff's Complaint.
2. At all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, was

and is a resident of Cook County, Illinois
Answer: Upon information and belief, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel

Company, L.L.C., admits the allegations contained in paragraph
2 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
3. At all times relevant hereto, THE RITZ, was the owner of certain
real estate located at 300 Town Center Drive, Dearborn, Michigan, on which
real estate THE RITZ did operate, maintain and control a certain public hotel, |
commonly known as The Ritz-Carlton Dearborn.
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document9 Filed 04/04/2006 Page 2 of 6

operated a hotel and maintained or caused to be maintained the hotel at the
time and place alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and further admits
that the hotel
was known as the Ritz-Carlton Dearborn Hotel, but denies each and every
allegation contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’'s Complaint.
4. On January 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, was lawfully
on the premises as aforesaid as a paying guest of said hotel

and place of public
accommodation, and as such, was a business invitee of Defendant.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., admits the factual
allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint but denies the legal conclusion

pled regarding Plaintiff’s legal status as a business invitee
and moves that said
allegation be stricken.
5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, it was the duty of the

Defendant to exercise ordinary care in the ownership, maintenance
and control
of their real and personal property to see that their premise
s, and the personal
property maintained thereon, were in reasonably safe condition for the use of
business invitees on the property, including the Plaintiff herein.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. admits those duties
imposed upon it by law but denies that Plaintiff has properl

y alleged the duty
then and there owed by it.
6. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi,
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. denies the

7. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant provided certain

electrical fixtures in its rooms, including a fixture located next to the bed
behind the nightstand.

provided certain electrical fixtures in its room, but denies the remaining
allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
8. On the date as aforesaid, the Plaintiff did reach behind the
nightstand to remove the plug from the outlet so that he cold use the electrical
outlet for another purpose.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., has insufficient
knowledge regarding the truthfulness of the allegations contained in paragraph
8 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and therefore, denies said allegations and requires
strict proof thereof.
9. Upon grasping the plug, the Plaintiff was jolted with a shock of
electricity, which was sufficiently severe to cause him to fall back to the floor.
Company, L.L.C., denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's
Complaint.
10. The plug in the hotel room at the time and place aforesaid had
bare wires and was not properly insulated, thus directly causing the Plaintiff to
suffer the electrical shock and become injured.

Complaint.
11. The electrical shock suffered by the Plaintiff as aforesaid was

directly and proximately caused by one or more of the foregoing careless and
negligent acts of the Defendant, in violation of its duty as aforesa
id:
(a) Failure to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe
condition;
(b) Failure to maintain its electrical fixtures in a

reasonably safe condition;
(c) Allowing bare wires exposed on the plug to remain in

a public area utilized by its business invitees,
although Defendant knew or should have known of
(d) Failure to warn the Plaintiff that there was a defective

plug and fixture in his room;
(e) Failure to eliminate the hazard caused by the exposed

wires on the electrical cord in the room as aforesaid.

allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, including each
and every allegation contained in subparagraphs (a) through (e) inclusive
.
12. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing,
the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, suffered diverse injuries to and about his body,
both internally and externally, of a permanent and lasting nature, which have
caused and will continue to cause pain in body and mind, and as a result of
which the Plaintiff has been and will continue to be further prevented and
limited in attending to his usual duties and affairs, and has lost and will
in the
future lose great gain which he otherwise would have made and acquired, all
to
the Plaintiff's damage.

allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

L.L.C., denies that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against it in the amount
4
sought or in any sum whatsoever, and further prays that judgment and costs
be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff,
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

L.L.C., by and through its attorneys, JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., and for its first
affirmative defense to Plaintiff's cause of action, plead in the alternative to its
answer, states that the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, was careless and
negligent in one or more or all of the following respects, which proximately
caused the injuries and damages of which he complains:
(a) Carelessly and negligently touched the metal element

of an electrical plug;
(o) Was otherwise careless and negligent.

L.L.C., prays for judgment and costs of suit, or in the alternative, prays that
no
non-economic damages be awarded and for a reduction of any economic
damages awarded to the Plaintiff in proportion to the percentage of Plaintiff’s
own contributory fault, or in the alternative, prays that all damages be reduced
in proportion to Plaintiff’s own contributory fault.

One of the Attorneys for The Ritz-
Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
ROBERT M. BURKE
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No.: 06347

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
~vs- )
)
Defendant, )
AFFIDAVIT
Robert M. Burke, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states that he
is
one of the attorneys for Defendant, THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, in
the above-captioned matter, that he is informed as to the statements of
insufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truthfulness of certain allegations
contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, and that on the basis thereof, Defendant denies
said allegations and requires strict proof thereof.

One of the Attorneys for
Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO

before me this day of
, 2006,
Notary Public
ROBERT M. BURKE
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., #06347
Telephone: (312) 372-0770

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
-vs- )
)
Defendant. )
RULE 26(A)(1) INITIAL DISCLOSURES SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY

L.L.C., by and through one of its attorneys ROBERT M. BURKE of JOHNSON &
BELL, LTD., and hereby submits its Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures as follows:
A. Persons with information. Based upon information and belief, at
this time, the following individuals likely have some knowledge pertaining to the
hotel’s relevant procedures and the incident alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint,
which Defendant may rely upon to support its defense in this litigation:
Plaintiff, Dean Toriumi, is believed to have information pertaining to the
alleged incident, his conversations with the hotel staff and its representatives
and his purported injuries and damages arising from the incident alleged in his
Complaint.
Loss Prevention Officer Brian McCoy, 211 North Franklin Street,
Dearborn, Michigan, spoke to the Plaintiff about the incident, his injuries, and
his declination of any medical assistance.

Alison Peters, the Director of Housekeeping, 5016 Heather Drive,
Dearborn, Michigan, is believed to have information relative to the Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Company, L.L.C.’s policies and procedures at the involved hotel.
Sharman Kinney, the Assistant Front Office Manager at the time of the
occurrence, current address unknown, is believed to have spoken to the
Plaintiff, to have offered medical attention, and to have information regarding
the doctor’s declination of any medical care.
Joseph Hutchison, the Director of Loss Prevention at the subject hotel,
17032 Coral Gables Street, Southfield, Michigan, is believed to have information
relative to the hotel’s policies and procedures and investigation into the subject
incident.
Hedy Tessler, the Concierge at the subject hotel, 5000 Mirror Lake Court,
West Bloomfield, Michigan, is believed to have spoken to the Plaintiff and to
have taken possession of the involved plug from the Plaintiff.
Dr. Mark Gonzalez, at the University of Illinois Medical Center, is
believed to have examined the Plaintiff and to have some information relative to
the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages.
Defendant reserves the right to name additional persons with knowledge
relative to this occurrence as those names become known. The identities of
Defendant’s consulting experts at this time are not subject to disclosure.
B. Relevant documents which the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company,
L.L.C. may use to support its defenses. Based upon information and belief at
this time, the following documents may be utilized to support the defenses of
the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. in this action:

The attached incident report prepared by Loss Prevention Officer, Brian
McCoy, the attached photocopies of photographs, the attached guest folio,
Plaintiff's W-2 forms for the years 2002 through 2004, which were provided by
Plaintiff, records provided by the Plaintiff regarding the number of surgeries
performed by him and the times to complete those surgeries, the Plaintiff's
surgery schedule, provided by the Plaintiff, and letters and e-mails sent to
Defendant by the Plaintiff. Additionally, Defendant may rely upon the report
prepared by Dr. Mark Gonzalez, which was provided by Plaintiff’s counsel.
Defendant reserves the right to disclose additional documents which it
may use to support its defenses as said documents become available.
C. Damages. No damages are claimed by the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C., at this time.
D. Insurance. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. was insured
through American Home Assurance Company, Policy No. RMGL4805953,
effective 10/1/03 through 10/1/04 with policy limits of $2.5 million per
occurrence.
By:
Robert M. Burke, one of the
Attorneys for the Ritz-Carlton
ROBERT M. BURKE
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No.: 06347
U.S. OmmHEOH OOGWH ud_uflfirwb Q>mHHO>U EWOEFH
12-MONTH PERIOD ENDING
SEPTEMBER30
ILLINOIS NORTHERN 2005 2004 | 2003 || 2002 || 2001 |(2000|Numerical Standing|
N [ Filings* [[9.056][10,584][11.126][11,135][10,957][9,496][ US. ][ Circuit
HveraL | Terminations |[8.80s][11.461][10.888][10,709][10319][9,784] |
Mw%wacmh Pending J7.914][ 7.706][ 8,699][ 8,587 3,271 :w_ [
- _ Over Last Year = -14.4 _ _r
=) %
s ¢Change ini Total [ Filings | Over Earlier Years s 187 174] 44 _
[= Number of Judgeships U2 22 22 2 2
[© Vacant Judgeship Months** L2 o6l 221][ 178 33 19
@ [ Total [ 4n2f[ 48] sos|[ soel[ 498 432[ s
mJ FILINGS [ Civil JL 369 437 461][_4s9][ a70][ 402]|
© [ Criminal Felony I R T [ |
mv.n_.u_.mMZm [ Supervised Release Hearings** _ 9 _N__ N__
FIDGESHIP _ Pending Cases [A_
© [ Weighted Filings** 512 526 482 3)
H [ Terminations 100 _sai]| 487|[_ae9][ 445 4
w [ Trials Completed 13 4 15[ 13 3|
MEDIAN - o Criminal Felony 29 61__ 10.3][ 7]
My\._:_smm From Filing to Disposition _’ Civites I os] T 3
Documelnt #:
(months) | From Filing to Trial** (Civil Only) 279 Nw_ 26.9)

_ 260 263|[ 27. 4
- - _[ Number 388 337|442 ae1][ 48s|[ s04][ Il ]
Civil Cases Over 3 Years Old: Percentage Mm__ 5 __Iql__ 50 o.u__!q m_
OTHER |[_ Average Number of Felony Defendants Filed Per Case || 19| 1.9 17 17__L6|_ 17| ]
Jurors [ Ave. Present for Jury Selection ][51.46][ 39.36][ 45.57][ 43.63][ 39.43|[38.55 ]
1:06-cv-()1720
[Percent Not Selected or Challenged][ 36.9] 3101 37.3][ 34.8| 36.7][ 29.5] j
_Noom CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FELONY FILINGS BY NATURE OF SUIT AND O_.._uymzwl_n“_
[Ctvpeof J[TOT
A B[ AL
c DI E] F o [a] 1] JKI |
[_civil 8128 148][ 215][ 756][
60| as1][ 1453 :wm.__ %o_ 462][ 1654][16] No
Case:
[ Criminal* | 73U[ 3|19z ssf[o8| 15847 1545l e[ 59

the “Oveal Caseload 5" section include criminal transfers, while filings "By Nature of Offense" do not.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT - JUDICIAL CASELOAD PROFILE
12-MONTH PERIOD ENDING
SEPTEMBER30
MICHIGAN EASTERN 2005 || 2004 || 2003 |f 2002 || 2001 || 2000 |[Numerical Standing]
L [ Filings* [6:403] 5,679][ 5.843][ 5.706][ 5.432| 6,294 US_|[ Circuir |
125 veraLt | Terminations J[5.796][ 5.534][ 5.400][ 5,585][ 5,416][ 6,771 ]
ASELOAD|[ Pending _[20.731][20,097][19,876][19,441][19,342[19,37 ]
SATISTIY % Change in Total Flings | OverOver Last Year eT L[ 1 % 1
< [ Earlier Years o6 22 79[ 17 47
Number of Judgeships IS IS I S S S
o Vacant Judgeship Months** [ 36.0] 275 24.0] 24.0[ 20.0] 18]
2 I fi.zw_ 27 379 389l 380][ 362 420 54
S FILINGS N Civil 375\ 32s|[ 329) 327 329 387 39
0 [ Criminal Felony T e[ a0 s a0 33 3
%oh.%% [ Super Release
vised Hearings®™* ][ 16]__14] __15]_ 13]
MSOmmEl Pending Cases [ 1.382][ 1,340] 1,325][ 1,296][ 1,289][ 1,292
°© [ Weighted Filings** [ 431 a06|[_426][_404][ 387[ 39 J_
H [ Terminations 386 369 wfiw 37| 361|[_451] _
- [ Trials Completed [ |
MEDIAN From Fill 1 Criminal Felony L B0l 114 ol__ 1.0 11.4[ 101 9
M?.__._me rom Fili
to Disposition
ng _’ it =|‘_oo_ 3. _ o.q__
W m_
o (months) |~ From Filing to Trial**(Civil Only) 220 220 23,8 [ 205 2]
jJ
£ . o [ Number 14,935](14,923][14,876][14,857][14,763][10,456 B
=3
o (Civil Cases Over 3 Years Old™) Percentage 7501 775| 778] 79.1] 787 55| 9]
o
o OTHER | Average Number of Felony Defendants Filed Per Case Lol L L3 L[ ]
o _ [ Avg. Present for Jury Selection
«
~
| 57.80[ 56.08][ 61.29][ 44.52|[ 38.79][ 39.34) ]
— wrers [Percent Not Selected or Challenged|
51.4|| 444 52.4|[ 44.0] 38.0] 42.1 |
g
© _necm CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FELONY FILINGS BY NATURE OF SUIT AND OFFENSE]
=]
- [ Typeof |[TOTAL | A J[ B ] [ D
) [ civil | s62s][ 260][ 689] io0e][ sa
0
I [ Criminal* | s37| 4] 144[ o] 124]
O
s" section include criminal transfers, while filings "By Nature of Offense" do not

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
v. )
COMPANY, LL.C., ) Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
)
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF MOTION
TO: Bemard Roccanova

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Please take notice that on the 20th day of April, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., Defendant,
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., shall appear before the Honorable Ronald Guzman
or any judge sitting in his stead, in Room 1219, in the United States District Court, for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and then and there present its Motion to
Transfer Venue, a copy of which is attached hereto and served upon you.
I, Robert M. Burke, certify that I caused service of this Notice of Motion and
Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue to Bernard Roccanova by U.S. Mail at his address
shown above on this 13th day of April 2006.
/s/ Robert M. Burke
Mr. Robert M. Burke

Telephone: (312) 372-0770

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 06 C 1720
ys-
Judge Ronald Guzman
Defendant.
REPORT OF PARTIES’ PLANNING CONFERENCE
Pursuant to this Court’s Order, Bernard Roccanova of Daley & Mohan,

P.C., representing the Plaintifl, and Robert M. Burke of Johnson & Bell, Ltd.,
representing the Defendant, met on April 10, 2006, pursuant to Rule 26(f) to
discuss:
(48] The nature and basis of claims and defenses.
Plaintiff plastic surgeon, an llinois resident, filed this case in the Circuit
Court of Cook County for injuries to fingers of his dominant hand which
he suffered as a resnlt of electrical shock while removing a plug from an
outlet in a room which he rented at Defendant’s hotel on January 14,
2004, The nature of the claim is alleged negligence on the part of the
Defendant.
The matter was removed to this Court by the Defendant. There is a

motion to transfer venue, based upon forum non conveniens, pending.
2) Possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of this case.
The parties have discussed settlement but believe some discovery will be
required before further such discussion would be helpful,
3) To make or arrange for the disclosures required under Rule

26(a)(1); and
(&3] To develop a discovery plan.
The parties have agreed and submitted a Proposed Scheduling

Order.
To that end, the parties propose the following:

The issues in this se may be simplified by taking the following

steps:
This is a negligence case, and expert testimony will be necessary

to establish a causal connection between the electrical shock and
the injury claimed.
The following modifications to discovery requirements of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules should be made in
order to expedite discovery:
None.
Discovery will be needed on the following subjects:
1. How a broken plug came to be left in an outlet in the

room which the Plaintiff rented from Defendant.
2. How Plaintiff came in contact with that broken plug.
3. The nature and extent of the physical injuries

suffered by the Plaintiff.
4. The nature and extent of the Plaintiff's economic

damages.
5. Contributory negligence, if any, of the Plaintiff.
6. Whether additional parties need to be joined.
Discovery should be conducted in phases.
Discovery is likely to be contentious and management of discovery

should be referred to the Magistrate Judge.
Yes X No
The parties do not consent to this matter being referred to the

Magistrate Judge for final disposition,
The parties have discussed the possibility of alternative dispute

resolution and concluded:
That it may be appropriate after preliminary discovery has been

concladed.
The parties have discussed a prompt scttlement or other

resolution of this matter,
The Plaintiff has made a demand of $250,000.00 and the

Defendant has offered $7,500.00
L The Court should consider the following methods of expediting the

resolution of this matter.
The parties will require some discovery before further discussion

regarding resolution can take place,
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
By: / e
Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
By: . é @g@_%é’/
Ronald A. Guzman
United States District Judge
Dated: _

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
Case No.: 06 C 1720
VS
} Judge Ronald Guzman
)
Defendant. }
PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
1. Discovery
The following time limits and deadlines shall be applicable.
A. All disclosures required b y Rule 26(a)(1) shall be made on or

before June 1, 2006. Defendant had already made its initial disclosures.
B. Any amendments to pleadings or actions to join other parties shall

be filed on or before December 1, 2006.
(It is recommended that any joinder or amendments be made early in the

discovery process so as to avoid the need to prolong discovery s to new parties
or new issues).
C. The cutoff of fact discovery is March 1, 2007.
D. Plaintiff shall disclose expert testimony pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)

on or before April 1, 2007 and Plaintiff’s experts shall be deposed by June 1,
2007.
E. Defendant shall disclose expert testimony pursuant to Rule 26()(2)

on or before July 1, 2007 and Defendant’s experts shall be deposed by
September 1, 2007,
F. The parties shall disclose any rebuttal expert pursuant to Rule

26(a)(2) at any time prior to October 1, 2007.
G. The parties shall have until December 1, 2007 to depose the

opposing party’s rebuttal expert.
2. Motions
Any dispositive motions to be filed on or before September 1, 2007. (Ordinarily

this date will be thirty (30) days following the close of fact discovery).
3. Final Pretrial Order and Conference
The final pretrial order shall be filed on or before December 1, 2007. {Ordinarily
this date will be ninety (90) days after the deadline for dispositive motions).
The final pretrial conference will be held on at ____.m.

(This date and time will be set by the Court at the Rule 16 conference).
4. Trial
Trial is set in this matter on at 10:00 a.m. (The trial will be set by
the Court at the Rule 16 conference).
5. Status Hearing
A further status hearing/preliminary pretrial conference should be held on
Ronald A. Guzman
United States District J udge
Dated:
I, Berard Roccanova, an attorney, hereby certify that on the 18th day of April,
2006, I caused the foregoing Proposed Scheduling Order to be served on the attorney of
record using notice of the CM/ECF electronic filing system.
s/Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUM], )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 06 C 1720
)
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL ) Judge Guzman
COMPANY, LL.C, ) Magistrate Denlow
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET A BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, by his attorneys, Bernard Roccanova and Daley &
Mohan, P.C., moves this Court to sct a briefing schedule on Defendant’s Motion to
Transfer and for reasons, states:
1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging
personal injury which he sustained on January 10, 2004 while a guest at Defendant’s
hotel.
2. Defendant removed the case to this court on diversity grounds and
subsequently filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the
Fastern District of Michigan.
3. Defendant’s motion is set to be heard on April 20, 2006.
4. By this motion, the Plaintiff requests 14 days to respond to the said
motion, by May 4, 2006, and requests that the Defendant be granted seven days
thereafter, by May 11, 2006, to reply.

Wherefore, Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, moves the Court as aforesaid.
D)
ATTORNEY FORPLAINTIFF
Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
150 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1550
Chicago, Itlinois 60606
(312) 422-9999
fon
I, Bernard Roccanova, an attorney, hereby certify that on the [(? day of April,
2006, I caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion to Set a Briefing Schedule on
Defendant’s Motion to Transfer to be served on the attorney of record by depositing the
same in the U.S. Post Office box located at 150 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, lllinois,
before the hour of 5:00 p.m., addressed as follows:
Robert M. Burke
55 East Monroe Street
Suite 4100
Chicago, 1L, 60603
Bernard Roccanova

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 06 C 1720
)
COMPANY, LL.C,, ) Magistrate Denlow
)
Defendants. )
NOTICE OF MOTION
To: Robert M. Burke

Suite 4100
Chicago, 1L, 60603
On April 20, 2006 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, I
shall appear before the honorable Judge Ronald A. Guzman, or any Judge sitting in his
stead, in courtroom 1219 of the Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois and then and
there present PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET A BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER, a copy of which is attached hereto.
A2 Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendants
150 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1550
Chicago, IL 60606
312/422-9999
Atty. No. 36564
7L\
1, Bernard Roccanova, an attorney, hereby certify that on the /£ day of April,
2006, 1 caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion to Set a Briefing Schedule on
Defendant’s Motion to Transfer to be served on the attorney of record by depositing the
same in the U.S. Post Office box located at 150 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois,
before the hour of 5:00 p.m., addressed as follows:
Robert M. Burke
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL. 60603
Betrnard Roccanova

Eastern Division
Dean M Toriumi
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:06—cv—01720
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, April 20, 2006:
MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman :Status hearing held on

4/20/2006. Rule 26 compliance by 5/22/2006. Amended Pleadings due by 7/21/2006.
Joinder of Parties due by 7/21/2006. Fact discovery ordered closed by 8/31/2006.
Plaintiff's expert reports by 11/1/06. Plaintiff's experts shall be deposed by 12/15/06.
Defendant's expert reports by 1/29/07. Defendant's experts to be deposed by 2/28/07.
Dispositive motions due by 3/26/2007. Status hearing set for 9/8/2006 at 09:30
AM .Mailed notice(cjg, )

Eastern Division
Dean M Toriumi
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:06—cv—01720
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, April 20, 2006:
MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman :Motion to set a briefing schedule
[18] 1s granted, Set deadlines/hearing as to motion to transfer case[14] : Responses due by
5/4/2006. Replies due by 5/11/2006. Ruling to be by mail. Mailed notice(cjg, )

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v, ) Case No. 06 C 1720
)
COMPANY, L.L.C., ) Magistrate Denlow
)
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TQ TRANSFER
Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, by his attorneys, Bernard Roccanova and Daley &
Mohan, for his response to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404
(a), states:
BACKGROUND
Dean M. Toriumi, a resident of Cook County, is a plastic and reconstructive
surgeon who is on staff and a professor at the University of Illinois Chicago Hospitals,
and also has a private practice in Chicago. (On Janary 14, 2004, e was a paying guestat )
On January 10, 2000, suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging
negligence on the part of the Defendant. On March 29, 2006, the Defendant removed the
case to this Court, based on diversity of citizenship. On April 13, 2006, the Defendant
filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28
US.C. § 1404 (a). In its motion, the Defendant acknowledges that it does business in
Cook County and is thus a resident of the Northern District of Illinois. (Defendant’s
Motion to Transfer, p. 2)
As venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinots, and the Defendant has
failed to establish that the requisite factors strongly favor transfer, Dr. Toriumi objects to
and opposes that motion.
DISCUSSION
In 1948, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), which states:
(@) For the convenience of partics and witnesses, in the interests of

justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought.
Because the determination of whether transfer is appropriate is made on a case-by-case
basis and “involves a large degree of subtlety and latitude™, it is “commitied to the sound
discretion of the trial judge.” Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 a"
Cir. 1986); Bafia v. Marion, 2004 WL 1611074 (ND II1.)
In analyzing a 1404 (a) motion, courts are to consider both “private interests™, i.e.,
the interests of the particular parties, as well as “public interests”, which focuses on the
cfficient administration of the court system, rather than private considerations of the
litigants. Amoco Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Co., 90 E. Supp. 2d 958, 961 (N.D. 11l. 2000).
Private interests include: (1) the Plaintiffs choice of forum; (2) the situs of
material events; (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of
the parties; and (5) the convenience of witnesses. Id. at 960. Public interests include: (1)
the speed at which the case will proceed to trial; (2) the court’s familiarity with the
applicable law; (3) the relation of the community to the occurrence; and (4) the
desirability of resolving controversies in their locale. Id. at 961-62.
Neither private nor public policy considerations suggest that transfer is
appropriate in this case.
PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS
Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
Courts have consistently held that, unless the balance is strongly in favor of the
movant, the Plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. See, e.g., Gull Qil Co,
v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S. Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1977). The movant must
show that “the transferee forum is clearly more convenient.” Coffey, supra, at 219-20.
The Seventh Circuit has described it as:
[a] strong presumption in favor of the Plaintiff’s choice of forum, which

may be overcome only when the private and public interest factors clearly
point toward trial in the alternative forum. Macedo v. Boeing Co., 693 F.
2d 683, 688 (7" Cir. 1982).
A party seeking to transfer venue:
... bears a heavy burden to show that the inconvenience of the parties and
witnesses and the dictates of justice are substantial enough to overcome
the presumption... Sitrick v. Frechand Sys., Inc., 2003 WL 1581741 at *2
(N.D. 11
A Plaintiff’s choice of forum is given added weight in those circumstances where
the Plaintiff resides in the chosen forum, as does Dr. Toriumi. See, e.g., Symons Corp. v.
Southern Forming & Supply Inc., 954 F. Supp. 184, 186 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Also, Sitrick v.
Frechand Sys, Inc., supra, at *2. As one court noted:
3
As [the Plaintiff] is an individual residing in this district, {the movant]

must carry the seavy burden of showing that transfer is warranted. It is
not enough that the transfer merely shifts the burden [of inconvenience]
from one party to the other; the transferee foram must be clearly more
appropriate than the transferor forum. Continental Ulinois Nat’l B. & T.
Co. of Chicago v. Stanley, 585 F. Supp. 610, 612 (N.D. Il 1984).
(emphasis added)
In this instance, the Plaintiff is obviously not forum shopping, but has chosen to
litigate in the forum where he resides, where he works and where he has received his
medical treatment. None of the factors cited in Defendant’s motion are sufficient to
overcome the strong deference to which the Plaintif’s choice is entitled.
Situs of Material Events
The situs of material events is one factor to be taken into account in the § 1404 (a)
analysis. In this case, the scene of the incident was a generic hotel room in Michigan.
Towever, all other material events, including Dr. Toriumi’s medical treatment and the
consequent difficulties which he’s experienced practicing his profession, have occurred,
and continue to occur, in this District. The actual instrumentality which caused Dr,
Toriumi’s injuries, the defective plug, weighs several ounces, is in Defendant’s
possession, and is easily transportable. There is no reasonable likelihood that a scene
view will be required, as the plug has been removed from the room. The Defendant has
produced photographs of the room with his Rule 26 disclosure which can be shown to the
jury to illustrate the physical layout of the room, if that becomes an issue. Thus the fact
that the incident occurred in Michigan carries little, if any, weight.
The Defendant cites the cases of Cameli v. WNEP-16, 134 F. Supp. 2d 403 (E.D.
Pa. 2001); Gaskins v. Amtrak, 2001 U.S. Dist LEXIS 3962 (E.D. Pa.); and Leinberger v.
Webster, 667 F.R.D. 28 (E.D. N.Y. 1975} for the proposition that the choice of forum is
diminished where the operative facts occur outside the forum. However, these cases are
factually distinguishable from the case herein.

4
Cameli was an employment discrimination case premised on the Americans With
Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff, a resident of Scranton in the Western District of
Pennsylvania, where the acts of discrimination were alleged to have taken place, filed suit
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Defendant moved to transfer to the Western
District. The court ordered the transfer, noting:
As Defendants point out, this claim involves a Scranton-area resident who

was allegedly discriminated against by her Scranton-area employer. Id., at
407.
The court further noted that:
Plaintiff>s choice of forum is not a dominant factor here because the

operative facts did not arise in this district, nor does Plaintiff reside here.
1d. at 407. (emphasis added)
Had that Plaintiff been a resident of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and entitled, as
is Dr. Toriumi, to the strong presumption in favor of the Plaintiff’s home foram, it is
likely that the court would not have disturbed that choice.
Tn Gaskins, the Plaintiff-railroad worker was a resident of and injured in Virginia
but chose to file her lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Again the Court
noted that forum cheice deference is reduced “where the lawsuit is initiated outside the
forum in which the Plaintiffis a resident,” 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3962, at *5. This is not
an issue in the case af bar.
Finally, the Leinberger case involved an automobile accident which occurred in
Vermont. Suit was filed in New York and the Defendant moved to transfer the case to
the District of Vermont. Following the accident, the Vermont State Police investigated
the case, and medical treatment was rendered by local paramedics and a local medical
doctor at a Vermont hospital. Plaintiff sued both the other driver for negligence and the
Vermont doctor for malpractice.

The court noted that both the accident and alleged malpractice occurred in
Vermont. More than that, the court noted that «// material witnesses (the State Trooper,
the other driver, paramedics, hospital personnel) would not be subject to subpoena if the
case remained in New York. Additionally, just days prior to the accident, the Plaintiff
was injured while skiing in Vermont, and witnesses might be called at trial to testify
regarding injuries suffered in that incident.
In contrast herein, there was no investigation by local law enforcement and no
medical treatment rendered to Dr. Toriumi in Michigan. All of the medical witnesses are
located in the Northern District of Illinois. As noted by the Leinberger court:
Certainly to fix the place of trial at a point where litigants cannot compel
personal attendance and may be forced fo try their cases on deposition, is
to create a condition not satisfactory to court, jury or most litigants.
(Leinberger at 34, citing Guif Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501,
511,91 L.Ed, 1055, 657 S. Ct. 839 (1947)).
The potential witnesses listed by Ritz-Carlton in the instant case are company
employces and will appear “live” whether the case is tried in Hlinois or Michigan. It is
much more likely that Dr. Toriumi’s medical witnesses will appear “live” it the case is
tried in Illinois than if it is transferred to Michigan. In fact, Dr. Toriumi’s medical
witnesses would not even be subject to subpoena in the event of a transfer to Michigan.
In Tsaparikos_v. Ford Motor Company, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24329 (N.D. II1)
the Plaintiff, an Indiana resident, was injured in a roll-over accident in New Mexico while
operating a Ford motor vehicle. He was given medical treatment in New Mexico and
later by doctors in IHinois and Indiana. Suit was filed in the Northern District of 1llinois
and Ford sought removal to New Mexico.
The court noted that the Plaintiff was an Indiana resident and thus, unlike Dr.
Toriumi, his choice of forum would not be given great deference, yet still denied the
motion to transfer. The court noted that while the accident and immediate medical
6
treatment occurred there, “New Mexico is not the only situs of material events”
(Tsaparikos at *5), noting that the Plaintifl’ continued to receive medical treatment in
Illinois and Indiana.
Ford listed 13 non-party witnesses located in New Mexico. The court noted that
while the presence of Ford’s witnesses in that state weighed heavily in favor of transfer,
“the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice require denial of
Ford’s motion to transfer venue”, as Ford failed to establish that transfer was clearly
more convenient. Id., at *10.
In Morris v. Genmar Industries, Inc., 1993 WL 217246 (N.D. 111.), the Plaintiffs,
residents of Illinois, filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging negligence and
other causes of action arising from a personal injury received in Michigan City, Indiana.
Noting that, among other factors, the injured Plaintiff received medical freatment in both
Illinois and Indiana, the court held that the situs of events could not be ascribed to one
particular location (Id. at *6) and refused to transfer the case from the Northern District
of Llinois.
The Defendant relies on Cunningham v. Cunningham, 477 F. Supp. 632 (N.D. IIL.
1979) as support for the position that tort cases are susceptible to transfer. However, the
comparison between that case and the present casc is inapposite. In Cunningham, the
Plaintiff-llinois resident brought suit against Defendant, a Michigan resident, for injurics
arising from a shooting incident in Michigan. The court granted Defendant’s motion to
transfer, noting that the “Plaintiff and her expert witness appear to be the only witnesses
actually living in Hlinois. Neither is the type of witness who is likely to be reluctant to
testify.” Id. at 634. The Defendant-movant asserted that there were occurrence witnesses
(the treating physician at the time of the incident, paramedics and investigating officers)
who all resided in Michigan and were not likely to testify absent a subpoena. Under the
circumstances, the motion to transfer was granted.
The present case is, in many respects, the obverse of Cunningham. Unlike the
individual Defendant-movant in Cunningham, the Defendant-movant hercin is a
multinational corporation with essentially unlimited resources for whom litigating in this
forum would not be a hardship. Additionally, Dr. Toriumi received no medical treatment
in Michigan. Nor did paramedics or local authorities respond to the incident. Rather, all
of his medical treatment was received in the Northern District of Illinois and the
convenience of these independent witnesses militates against moving the case to
Michigan.
Further, unlike Cunningham, all Defendant’s listed witnesses are employees of
the Defendant and as to such corporate witnesses, the long-standing rule has been that the
convenience of such wiinesses is less significant and accorded less weight than
independent witnesses such as Plaintiff’s contemplated medical witnesses. See, c.g.,
DEV Indus., Inc. v, NPC, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 313, 315 (N.D. 1. 1991).
In the instant case, while the incident took place in the Eastern District of
Michigan, all of the other material events have occurred, and continue to occur, ir-
Convenience of the Parties
Dr, Toriumi is a resident of the State of Illinois and practices medicine in this
District. The Defendant is a multinational hotel chain with properties in numerous states,
including the State of Illinois. According to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer, the
Defendant is a citizen of the States of Delaware, Virginia and Maryland. In Tsaparikos,

8
supra, the court noted that Ford “is a national corporation” and would not be
inconvenienced by litigating in Illinois. Id. at *6. Needless to say, it will be
extraordinarily more inconvenient for Dr. Toriumi to litigate in Michigan than for the
Defendant to litigate in Hlinois.
Even if it were inconvenient for the Defendant to litigate this case in Illinois, a
defendant “cannot use a motion to transfer simply to shift the one party’s inconvenience
onto another party.” Bafia v. Marion, 2004 WL 1611074 (N.D. IIL), citing Coleman v,
Buchhiet, Inc., 2004 WL 609369 (N.D. I1L.) As noted in In Re National Presto Industries.
347 F. 2d 662, 665 (7" Cir. 2003):

When Plaintiff and Defendant are in different states there is no choice of
forum that will avoid imposing inconvenience; and when the
inconvenience of the alternative venues is comparable there is no basis for
a change of venue; the tic is awarded to the Plaintiff.
The relative financial abilities of the partics can also be relevant to the issue of the
pariies’ convenience. See Sitrick at *4. While the Plaintiff is not without resources, his
financial ability to prosecute a lawsuit in a foreign foram pales when measured against
the resources of the Defendant. See, also, CRL Industries v. Jones, 2004 WL 603473
(N.D. 111, y*2.
It is undoubted that the inconvenience to Dr Toriumi by forcing him to litigate in
a forum other than his home forum will far outweigh the inconvenience to the corporate
Defendant litigating in this District.
Convenience of Witnesses
The convenience of witnesses has been described as the most important factor in
the § 1404 (a) analysis. Bafia at *4. However, the convenience of witnesses who are
employees of a corporate party is less significant than that of non-party witnesses, and is
accorded less weight in a transfer of venue analysis. See Dev. Indus., Inc., supra, at 315.
Sce, also, Millennium Products, Inc., v. Gravity Boarding Co.. Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 974,
980 (N.D. TI1. 2000):
[T]t is reasonable to assume that these employees will be made available

for trial, and there is no indication that bringing them to Chicago would
unduly disrupt [movant’s] business. Id. at 980.
In the instant case, all of the potential occurrence witnesses listed by the
Defendant in its motion to transfer are employces of the Defendant. Other than in the
broadest generalities, the “Defendant has failed to describe the nature and quality of the
proposed witnesses’ testimony and/or whether they would be unwilling to testify in
Iltinois™ (Bafia, supra, *4). Further, the Defendant hasn’t shown that lack of compulsory
process over any potential witnesses would be detrimental to its case. See, e.g., Peterson
v. U.S. Steel, 624 F. Supp. 94 (N.D. 111. 1985).
It is believed at this time that the majority, if not all, of Dr. Toriumi’s witnesses
reside and/or work in the Northern District of [llinois.' —
The Defendant expresses concern that the court not give “unduc weight to the fact
a Plaintiff’s treating physician or expert has an office in a Plaintiff’s chosen forum,
because to do so would allow a Plaintiff to easily frustrate the forum non conveniens
principle by selecting as a witness a treating physician or expert in what would, in reality,
! “{Non-movant] has not identified his potential witnesses at this point in the litigation, but as he does not
seek to transfer the case, this is not his burden at this time.” Sitrick, supra, at *4.
10
be an inconvenient forum” (Defendant’s Motion to Transfer, p. 8-9), citing Washington
v. Illinois Power Co., 144 111 2d 395, 581 N.E. 2d 644 (5“‘ Dist. 1991).
In Washington, the Plaintiffs, residents of Bond County, Illinois, the situs of the
incident, chose to file suit in Madison County, Illinois. The courl noted that the
Plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to less deference when it is not the home forum.
Plaintiffs’ treating physicians were not located either in the Plaintiffs’ home county or in
the forum county. Under the circumstances, the court granted the motion to transfer.
Neither situation exists in the instant case, where Dr. Toriumi has brought suit in his
home forum and his treating physicians are located in that same forum.
Morcover, an important component of Dr. Toriumi’s damages is the fact that the
(incident lefl him unble to complete his surgeries as expeditiously as he had prior to the -
incident,resuling in fower surgeies and thercby substantaly impacting his income. 1
is likely that he will have members of his surgical team, located in this District, testify to
that fact. He is also likely to have administrative staff, also located in this District, testify
regarding the quantification of his relative surgical times prior to and subsequent to the
incident, and the negative affect on his income.
The Defendant has failed to show that there arc non-party witnesses who will be
inconvenienced by honoring Dr. Toriumi’s choice of his home forum.
PUBLIC INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS
Time to Trial
In support of its motion, the Defendant notes that, on average, it takes 5 months
longer for a civil case to come to trial in the Northern District of Hlinois (27.0 months in
2005) as contrasted with the Eastern District of Michigan (22.0 months in 2005). In light
of the fact that more than 98% of tort cases in the Federal system are resolved short of
11
trial,? a more relevant statistic is “From Filing to Disposition.” Those numbers reveal
that this case is likely to be more quickly disposed of in this District (6.9 months) than in
the foreign forum (9.9 months). Between the years 2000 and 2005, the figures for this
forum consistently ranged between 5.1 and 5.9 months, while the range of corresponding
numbers for the Bastern District of Michigan was 9.4 and 9.9 months.
These statistics suggest that this factor is, at best, a wash and actually favors
keeping the case in the Northern District of Illinois. More important than those general
statistics, however, is the point made by Judge Conlon of this Court in Tsaparikos, supra,
*9, that the movant “loses sight of the specifics of this case” (emphasis in the original).
In the casc at bar, this Court has sel reasonably tight discovery deadlines, e.g., fact
discovery to be closed by August 31, 2006, The Court in Tsaparikos voted:
Transfer... will likely delay proceedings, whereas the partics are assured a
speedy resolution of the case upon retention of venue. This factor weighs
against transfer. (Id at *9.)
Defendant’s contention on page 11 of its Motion to Transfer that “the interests of
Jjustice clearly favor the Eastern District of Michigan, as this case is more likely to receive
a speedy trial by a Court that generally disposcs of matters in a more timely fashion” is
simply not supported by the facts.
Familiarity with the Law
This factor has been discounted by courts where the law to be applied was
relatively simple and straightforward, such as the negligence cause of action pled by the
plaintiff in this case. “fW]here the law in question is neither complex nor unsettled, the
interests of juslice remain neutral between competing courts.” Sitrick, supra, at *5.
2 11.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Tort Trials and Verdicts, August 2005.
Nearly 20% of the 512,000 civil cases terminated were tort cases; of the 98,786 tort cases, 1,647 (.0167%)
were decided by a bench or jury trial.
12
In Peterson v. U.S. Steel, 624 F. Supp. 44 (N.D. Ill. 1985), the court noted:
Defendants argue that the controlling substantive law in this action is

Indiana law and that therefore transfer to the Indiana District Court is
warranted. In addressing this argument, the court first notes that federal
district courts must often undertake the task of deciding foreign law.
Further, familiarity with state law does not weigh heavily in consideration
of a motion to transfer since a change of venue under § 1404 () is to be
“but a change of courtrooms.” Van Dusen v, Batrack, 376 U.S. 612, 639,
84 S. Ct. 805, 821, 11 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1964).
The elements of a negligence case — duty, breach of duty and proximate cause —
remain the same whether litigated in Illinois, Michigan or any other state in the country.
Federal District Courts see these cases often enough (see footnote 2, above) to have more
than a passing familiarity with them. As this Court noted at the initial status conference
in shortening the dates suggested in the parties” scheduling order, there is nothing
particularly complicated about this case. Nor, as pointed out in Tsaparikos at *9, has
movant demonstrated that the law of the situs significantly differs from Hlinois law.
Relation of the Community and Desirability of Resolving the Dispute Locally
In the instant casc, (Dr. Toriumi traveled o Michigan to stay at an interational
(Defendant’s negligence, he received a severe elecirical shock! Courts have consistently

recognized that the state of which the Plaintiff is a resident has a strong interest in
providing its residents with a convenient forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-
state actors. Transact Technologies, Inc. v. 1Source Worldsite, 2002 WL 122515 (N.D.
i)
Cowrts have further recognized that the forum state has an even greater interest in
cases which involve effects “of a sort highly dangerous to persons and things,” which
would normally be product liability or other tort cases, and a lesser interest in a contract
dispute. See, e.g., Lakeside Bridge & Steel Co. v. Mountain State Construction Co., Inc.
13
597 F.2d. 596, 602 (7" Cir. 1979), citing the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws,
§37, Comment A. It would be difficult to conceive of an incident more “highly
dangerous to persons” than a broken plug negligently allowed to remain in a wall outlet.
In Tsaparikos, supra, the Court noted that, while resolving litigated controversies
in their locale is, generally, a desirable goal of federal courts, this generality can be
overcome when a “national brand™ is involved:
The Ford Explorer is distributed and sold throughout the United States.
As a national product, Ilinois shares New Mexico’s interest in redressing
alleged product defects. This factor does not weigh in favor of or against
transfer. Tsaparikos at *10.
Similarly herein, Illinois shares Michigan’s interest in redressing the tort
committed by this nation-wide hotél chain against an Illinois citizen.
Conclusion
Motions to transfer are to be granted only when doing so promotes convenience
of the parties and witnesses, and is in the interests of justice. The Defendant-movant has
not shown sufficient reason to transfer to overcome the strong presumption in favor of
Dr. Toriumi who secks to bave his case adjudicated in his home forum.
Defendant’s motion to transfer should be denied.
[l
Bernard Roceanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
150 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1550
(312) 422-9999
14
CERTIFICATE, OF SERVICE
fn
1, Bernard Roccanova, an attorney, hereby certify that on the 4 day of May,
2006, | caused the foregoing Plaintif’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer
to be served on the attorney of record by e-filing and by depositing the same in the U.S.
Post Office box located at 150 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illincis, before the hour of
5:00 p.m., addressed as follows:
Robert M. Burke
Suite 4100
B
Chicago, I1. 60603
Bernard Roccanova
15

EASTERN DIVISION
DEANM. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
V. )
COMPANY, L.L.C., ) Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
)
Defendant. )
REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Carlton”), by and through one of its attorneys, Robert M. Burke of JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.,
and in reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, states as follows:
Introduction
In his Reply brief, Plaintiff repeatedly refers to the convenience of Plaintiff’s medical
witnesses, as the primary basis why this Court should allow venue to remain in the Northern
District of Illinois, yet at the Parties’ Rule 26 Conference and in the documents provided by Dr.
Toriumi to Defendant’s claims representatives, plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff repeatedly
advised that plaintiff has seen only one doctor on only one occasion as a result of the incident
alleged in the Complaint. Plaintiff disclosed that he was examined on January 5, 2005, almost
twelve full months after the occurrence, by Dr. Mark Gonzalez, an orthopedic surgeon and one
of Dr. Toriumi’s colleagues at the University of Illinois at Chicago Hospital. There is no
information provided in plaintiff’s brief to show where Dr. Gonzalez resides, or that he would
refuse or even find it inconvenient to testify in Michigan on behalf of his colleague. Plaintiff
has now identified a Dr. Boris Vern, but has not provided defendant or the Court with any
information to indicate when, if ever, Dr. Vern examined the Plaintiff. The only possible
explanation is that Dr. Vern has either never examined the Plaintiff or did so after the parties
initial planning meeting on April 10, 2006. It should further be noted that the interrogatories
served on plaintiff on March 29, 2006, which requested the names of witnesses and medical
personnel who treated the plaintiff, remain unanswered and are overdue. Presumably, this is
because there is no information contained in those responses, which would support plaintiff’s
arguments that Illinois is a convenient forum to litigate this action. Moreover, the response brief
fails to identify the address of a single witness, other than that of the plaintiff, who resides in
Tllinois or who would be inconvenienced by traveling to Michigan to testify.
Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated claim that the Defendant operates hotels in Illinois is also
untrue. As counsel for the parties discussed, the only Ritz-Carlton Hotel operated in Illinois is
not owned or operated by the defendant in this case, but rather, is operated by the Four Seasons
Hotel Limited. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC is subject to jurisdiction in Illinois
solely because it operates a sales office in Illinois.
In sum, plaintiff points to a single factor to justify venue remaining in Illinois — the
residence of the plaintiff. The convenience of the physicians who were hired to examine the
Plaintiff for purposes of the litigation, one of whom appears to have not even yet seen the
Plaintiff, as hereinafter set forth, is not a significant factor to be considered by the Court. All of
the other factors to be considered by the Court point to Michigan being a much more convenient
forum from the standpoint of the application of the relevant public interest and private interest
factors. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to transfer venue should be granted.

1I. Transfer Of This Cause To Michigan Is Appropriate, As The Applicable

FactorsWeigh Heavily in Favor of Transfer.
“Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions
for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and
fairness.”” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). The Supreme Court has
long recognized the importance of Section 1404(a) transfers in the federal system, emphasizing
that the statute was created because the “broad venue provisions in federal Acts often resulted in
inconvenient forums.” Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 522 (1990). Furthermore, 28
U.S.C. § 1412 provides that even if venue is proper in this district “venue may still be transferred
to another district if it is in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties.” The test
provided by § 1412 is written in the disjunctive, so satisfaction of either element by a
preponderance of the evidence is sufficient for a movant to carry its burden.
A: Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum.
In analyzing the convenience of the parties, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, while a factor,
is not dispositive. See generally, Robinson v. Madison, 752 F. Supp. 842, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
15341 (N.D. IIl. 1990). While the plaintiff's choice of forum generally is given substantial
weight when it is the district in which the plaintiff resides, /d. citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
454 U.S. 235, 255-56, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419, 102 S. Ct. 252 (1981); Gallery House, Inc. v. Yi, 587 F.
Supp. 1036, 1040 (N.D. IIl. 1984), if the chosen forum is not exclusively the place where the
cause of action arose, the plaintiff's choice of forum is only given consideration equal to other
factors, including the interests of justice. Id. Robinson, citing Van Gelder v. Taylor, 621 F.
Supp. 613, 618-619 (N.D. Iil. 1985) (emphasis added). See also Dunn v. Soo Line R. Co., 864
F.Supp. 64, 65 (N.D. Ill. 1994); Beveridge v. Mid-West Mgmt., Inc., 78 F. Supp. 2d 739, 747
(N.D. I1L. 1999).

Indeed, when none of the defendant’s conduct complained of occurred in the forum
selected by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's preference has minimal value. Durnn v. Soo Line R.R.
Co., 864 F. Supp. 64, 65 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (holding that a plaintiff’s preference for a forum is
given minimal value “where the conduct and events giving rise to the cause of action did not
take place in the plaintiff’s selected forum.”) (emphasis added). See also Robinson, supra, 752
F. Supp. at 846 citing Associated Mills, Inc., 588 F. Supp. at 1165, quoting Chicago, Rock Island
& Pacific R.R. 220 F.2d at 304; Lynch v. Obligacion, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1806, *3 (N.D. Ill.
1991).
Plaintiff’s claim has no substantive connection to the Northern District of Illinois, as
plaintiff does not allege that any of the events or omissions upon which his claim is based
occurred in Illinois. To the contrary, plaintiff’s claim arises solely out of activities that took
place in Michigan. As is clear from plaintiff’s own Complaint in this case, this litigation and all
of the elements of plaintiff’s alleged cause of action arose in Michigan and have no connection to
Tllinois. As such, plaintiff’s choice of forum is simply not controlling.
B: Situs of Material Events.
Plaintiff argues that the situs of plaintiff’s alleged injury is not significant, as there is “no
reasonable likelihood” that a scene view will be required. Plaintiff further argues that
photographs have been taken of the physical layout of the room and the alleged defective plug is
portable, so the fact that the incident occurred in Michigan “carries very little weight.” Plaintiff,
however, points to no case law to support these contentions. In fact, a scene view may very well
be required to determine if Plaintiff caused his own injuries by grasping a broken plug, which
presumably was left in the outlet by a prior guest, without first determining whether it was safe
to do so. Contrary to plaintiff’s claims, the fact that the incident occurred in Michigan carries
significant weight. For example, choice of law principals would dictate the application of
Michigan law in this case, as all material events surrounding plaintiff’s alleged injury occurred
in Michigan. Illinois law, applying the most significant relationship test, would look at the
following factors to determine which state law, Illinois or Michigan, should be applied herein:
a) the place where the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred, (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of
the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. In
the cases at hand, plaintiff’s alleged injury occurred in Michigan. The alleged conduct that
allegedly caused plaintiff’s injury, the leaving a broken plug in the socket in question, occurred
in Michigan. While plaintiff is a resident of Illinois and the defendant is subject to jurisdiction
in both Michigan and Illinois, the place where the relationship between the parties is centered is,
again, clearly and exclusively in Michigan.
Plaintiff refers to cases cited in defendant’s Motion to Transfer and dutifully attempts to
distinguish each case to support plaintiff’'s general proposition that if but one factor were
different, the cases “may have been” decided in favor of the plaintiff. To contend that the cases
defendant has cited are not completely analogous to the case at bar and then to leap to the
conclusion that the courts “would have likely” ruled in plaintiff’s favor if the plaintiffs in those
cases were residents of the state where the action was commenced is to lose sight of defendant’s
arguments and the general requisites of forum non conveniens analyses. This Court is to
consider all of the relevant factors, and for plaintiff to speculate that if a single factor were
different in any given case, the case might have come out differently is to ignore the plain
directive that courts are to consider all of the relevant factors in deciding a forum non
conveniens motion. Indeed, plaintiff's argument that the cases cited by defendant are not
completely analogous to the case at bar, and therefore, should be disregarded, misses the point.
All cases analyzing a forum non conveniens motion are likely to be different, as all such cases
are intensely fact specific. Each court must analyze all of the relevant factors and not base its
decision simply on whether plaintiff filed suit in his home state. Plaintiff’s oversimplistic and
conclusory arguments should be rejected.
In attempting to refute Cameli, for instance, plaintiff argues that if the Cameli plaintiff
had resided in his chosen forum, “it is likely that the court would not have disturbed that
choice”. Yet, as none of the operative facts in Cameli occurred in plaintiff’s chosen forum, it is
far more likely that the court would have disturbed plaintiff’s choice nonetheless. Again, if the
residency of the plaintiff and plaintiff’s choice of forum were the only factors to be considered
by this Court, none of the analysis outlined in defendant’s Motion to Transfer or plaintiff’s
Response to same would be required here. That simplistic argument, however, has been
repeatedly rejected. See Dunn, supra, 864 F. Supp. at 65; Robinson, supra, citing Associated
Mills, Inc. v. Rush-Hampton Industries, Inc., 588 F. Supp. 1164, 1165 (N.D. TIl. 1984), quoting
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Igoe, 220 F.2d 299, 304 (7th Cir. 1955).
In reviewing Leinberger, plaintiff argues that the case is distinguishable in that al/
material witnesses in Leinberger (including local law enforcement) were in the non-forum state
and then leaps to the general proposition that the case at hand was “not investigated by local law
enforcement and no treatment was rendered to Dr. Toriumi in Michigan.” Plaintiff is correct in
this contention. The case at hand was not investigated by local law enforcement. Instead, it was
investigated by Loss Prevention Officer Brian McCoy, a resident of Michigan, by Alison Peters,
the Director of Housckeeping, also a resident of Michigan, and by Joseph Hutchison, the
Director of Loss Prevention, a resident of Michigan. While the prior Office Manager, Sharmon
Kinney, is no longer believed to be a resident of Michigan, she was at the time of the
occurrence, and certainly is not a resident of Illinois. In fact, all pertinent witnesses to
defendant’s case, with the exception of perhaps Ms. Kinney, reside in Michigan.
While plaintiff argues that “all medical witnesses” of the plaintiff reside in Illinois, courts
within this district have repeatedly held that the residency of a plaintiff's treating physicians
should not be considered when evaluating a motion to transfer. See, for example, Lynch, supra,
1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1806, *7. As treating physicians are called to testify about matters
within their specialized knowledge of medicine, they are considered expert witnesses and further,
the residence of an expert witness does not affect the court's analysis under Section 1404(a). Id.
citing Karrels v. Adolph Coors Co., 699 F. Supp. 172, 176, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12919 (N.D. Iil.
1998). (reasoning that, as expert witnesses are paid for their time and are within the control of
the party calling them, the court should not consider them in its evaluation of a motion to
transfer). See also 4moco Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 958, 961, 2000 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 3661 (N.D. Ill. 2000). Moreover, Plaintiff’s “treating” physicians are subject to
subpoena and can testify by videotaped deposition as is the most usual manner of presentment of
physician testimony at trial today. Consequently, the residence of plaintiff's “treating”
physicians and retained experts should not be considered by this Court in ruling on defendant’s
Motion to Transfer.
Even assuming arguendo, and contrary to well-established law, that the residency of
plaintiff’s “treating” physicians should be considered, plaintiff has yet to formally disclose any
treating physicians to the defendants. Based on communications with the plaintiff, prior to his
filing of this lawsuit, and based upon the discussion of counsel at the parties’ initial planning
meeting, plaintiff was examined by only one physician, Dr. Mark Gonzales, an orthopedic
surgeon who is a colleague of Dr. Toriumi at the University of Illinois at Chicago Hospital. That
single exam took place on January 5, 2005, almost one full year after the occurrence involved in
this litigation. Plaintiff in response to defendant’s motion, however, argues that Boris Vern,
M.D., a neurologist, may also testify and has offices in Chicago. Plaintiff mentions Dr. Vern,
only in response to defendant’s Motion to Transfer herein. Those doctors certainly would appear
to be more properly characterized as retained experts than treating doctors as the disclosures
made by plaintiff’s counsel at the parties’ planning conference and prior to suit being filed
indicate that Dr. Vern never saw the plaintiff before suit was filed (two years after the
occurrence) and that Dr. Gonzalez examined the plaintiff only once, almost a full year after the
occurrence. Moreover, based on the aforementioned case law, the residency of plaintiff's
treating physicians, which has not even been disclosed, should not be given any significant
weight by this Court.
C: Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses
The relative convenience of witnesses is often the most important factor when
considering a motion to transfer under Section 1404(a). Dunn v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 864
F.Supp. 64, 65-66 (N.D. Ill. 1994) citing Rose v. Francetti, 713 F.Supp. 1203, 1214 (N.D. IIL.
1989) (finding factors weighed in favor of transfer because the vast majority of witnesses lived
outside plaintiff’s chosen forum). As argued above, all but one of defendant’s relevant
employees and witnesses are residents of Michigan. None live in Illinois. In contrast, plaintiff
has failed to disclose the residence address of any witness and the residency of plaintiff’s treating
physicians or experts is irrelevant to the Court’s analysis here.
In order to accurately gauge the full extent of the witness convenience factor, “the court
must also consider the nature and quality of their testimony and their availability by compulsory
process.” Bally Mfg. Corp. v. Kane, 698 F.Supp. 734, 738 (N.D. IIl. 1988). Contrary to
plaintiff claims, it is entirely plausible that the Ritz-Carlton will no longer employ any of
defendant’s witnesses at the time this case proceeds to trial. In any case, defendant’s witnesses
are just that: witnesses. They are certainly not interested parties to this case. While their
employer may have some control over their future, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a
non-party witness can be compelled by subpoena to attend trial only if that person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person within 100 miles of the courthouse or within
the state where the trial is to be held. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii).
As almost all of the witnesses, employed by Ritz-Carlton at the time of the incident, live
in Michigan, compulsory process ensuring their attendance at trial is only effective if trial in this
case takes place in Michigan. Further, given that no events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s
claim occurred in Ilinois, it is highly unlikely that plaintiff will be able to identify a single
material witness located within the Northern District of Illinois other than the physicians he
selects to examine him. In spite of the fact that the residency of plaintiff’s treating physicians
bears no weight in the Court’s analysis herein, there is no reason, at this late date, that Plaintiff
can not schedule examinations in Michigan with doctors licensed in Michigan since it is apparent
that doctors hereafter disclosed will be more in the nature of retained experts than treating
physicians. Consequently, the accessibility of the witnesses and the convenience of the
witnesses weigh significantly in favor of transfer.
D: Time to Trial
Plaintiff further argues, contrary to well-settled authority, that in light of the fact that
98% of tort cases in the federal system are resolved short of trial, the more-relevant statistic than
time from filing to trial is the time from filing to disposition. Again, Plaintiff cites no authority
to support his assertion that this Court should disregard well-settled authority and look to a new
factor — time from filing to settling- in determining whether to grant a motion to transfer venue.
Plaintiff further argues that a transfer would somehow delay this case, but as this case is
still in its inception, as plaintiff has not yet provided defendant with his Rule 26 Initial
Disclosures nor answered the overdue discovery, plaintiff’s argument rings hollow. Moreover,
there is no reason that all discovery would screech to a halt while the parties wait for the case to
be transferred. ~As such, plaintiff’s arguments do not withstand scrutiny.
E: Familiarity With The Law
Plaintiff also argues that a court’s familiarity with the law should be disregarded where
the law in question is neither complex nor unsettled. Such a general assertion could be
considered insolent to those who have spent countless years in practice working to obtain
expertise in such a diverse and broad area of law. Regardless, plaintiff intrepidly claims that the
elements of duty, breach of duty, and proximate cause remain the same whether litigated in
Illinois or Michigan. Yet even a cursory review of the elements required to prove such a cause
of action in these states would dictate a different conclusion.
For example, the elements of a cause of action for negligence under Michigan law are (1)
duty, (2) a general standard of care, (3) a specific standard of care, (4) cause in fact, (5) legal or
proximate cause, and (6) damage. See, e.g., Michigan Law and Practice, M.L.P. TORTS § 31,
Chapter 2 (General Negligence). Under Illinois law, to properly state a cause of action for
negligence, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff,
(2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff suffered an injury proximately caused
by the defendant's breach. See, e.g., lllinois Jurisprudence, Personal Injury and Torts § 15:02
(General Principals of Negligence). ~ Obviously, the instructions given to the jury will be
10
different in Illinois and Michigan and the proper instructions could be better crafted and
reviewed by Michigan attorneys and a Judge intimately familiar with the nuances of Michigan
law.
Moreover, the laws governing contribution and third party claims in Illinois and
Michigan are significantly different. Defendant will not attempt to analyze all of the
idiosyncrasies and differences of these laws here, but certainly to assume that they are not
substantially different would be incorrect. Plaintiff’s argument that this factor (familiarity with
the substantive law to be applied), which has repeatedly been recognized by the Courts as being
significant, should be disregarded, is without merit and ignores well-settled law.
F: Relation of the Community and Desirability of Resolving Disputes Locally.
Plaintiff cites to Lakeside Bridge to support his general contention that a forum state has
an even greater interest when a case involves “effects of a sort highly dangerous to persons and
things”. Lakeside Bridge, however, as well as the case it cites to support its proposition, Gray v.
American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 22 111.2d 432, 176 N.E.2d 761 (1961), are both
personal jurisdiction cases, involving whether a defendant purposefully availed itself of the
privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws. The issue in both cases was one of personal jurisdiction and not one of
analyzing a more-convenient forum. Defendant does not dispute that jurisdiction is proper in
Illinois.
More importantly, neither case involved a tort action where the injury occurred outside
of the forum state. Illinois would have little if any interest in the outcome of a case where an
alleged broken plug was allowed to remain in a socket at a non-Illinois location by a person who
is most likely not an Illinois resident at a hotel operated by a company which operates no hotels
11
in Illinois. When looking at these issues more objectively and considering the weight of all the
aforementioned factors in light of the facts of this case, transfer to the Eastern District of
Michigan is clearly the correct and just result.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff would have this Court disregard all of the factors, which the Supreme Court and
Circuit Courts have repeatedly found to be determinative of a forum non conveniens decisions.
Instead, plaintiff would like this Court to ignore well-settled law and decide the instant motion
solely on the basis of the plaintiff’s residence and his choice of venue in his home forum.
Because a review of all of the relevant private and public interest factors establishes that Illinois
is a much more convenient forum for the resolution of this litigation than is Michigan,
defendant’s Motion to Transfer venue should be granted.
‘WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, defendant, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company,
L.L.C., moves this Honorable Court for an Order granting its Motion to Transfer Venue to the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan.
Respectfully submitted, this 11" day of May 2006

Mr. Robert M. Burke
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
12
Certificate of Service
The undersigned states that a copy of the foregoing Defendant’s Reply in Support of Its
Motion to Transfer Venue was served by electronic means concurrent with the filing of the
aforementioned with the Court’s ECF/CM system on May 11, 2006 on:
Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
150 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1550
Respectfully submitted, this 11th day of May 2006

Mr. Robert M. Burke
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
13

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 06 C 1720
)
)
Defendants. )
MOTION FOR QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE

ORDER PURSUANT TO HIPAA
Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, through his attorneys, Bernard Roccanova and Daley
& Mohan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1320 (b) and 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 (HIPAA),
moves the Court to enter a Qualified Protective Order and for reasons, state:
1. Plaintiff, a physician, has filed a cause of action alleging personal injury as

a result of an electric shock received while a guest at Defendant’s hotel.
2. The Plaintiff, treating physicians, hospitals and other health care providers
disclosed by the Plaintiff in this case are all “covered entities” as defined by 45 CFR
§160, 103. HIPAA prohibits covered entities from disclosing protected health
information in judicial proceedings other than by authorization or Qualified Protective
Order. See 45 CFR §164.512(e).
3. These covered entities are all in possession of “protective health

information” as defined by 45 CFR §160.103 and §160.501, in the form of medical
records, including, inter alia, imaging studies, test results, insurance documents, progress
notes, physicians’ orders, laboratory results, pathology, correspondence, etc., pertaining
to the Plaintiff. As a physician, the Plaintiff is in possession of “protective health
information” regarding patients whom he has treated, the identity of whom may be
disclosed during the pendency of the litigation.
4. In order to prosecute and defend this case, both parties, their attorneys,
their attorneys’ agents, consultants and various witnesses and other personnel will be
required to receive and review copies of the protective health information referenced
herein.
5. Plaintiff has consulted with Defendant’s counsel, who has no objection to

this Motion.
‘Wherefore, Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, moves this Court to enter the proposed
Qualified Protective Order permitting the use and disclosure of protective health
information created or received by any covered entity who has provided health care to
Plaintiff or to whom the Plaintiff has rendered care, for any purpose connected with the
pending litigation.
Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Chicago, IL 60606
312/422-9999
Atty. No. 36564
I, Bernard Roccanova, an attorney, hereby certify that on the 16th day of May,
2006, I caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion for Qualified Protective Order
Pursuant to HIPAA to be served on the attorney of record electronically by using the
CM/ECF electronic filing system:
Robert M. Burke
Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60603
Bernard Roccanova
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILE

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS JUN 0 6 2006
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL W. DOBBINS
DEAN M. TORIUMI, erER, U, DISTRICT COURT,
e
Plaintiff,
e
V. Case No. 06 C 1720
e
e
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL Judge Guzman
e
COMPANY, L.L.C,, Magistrate Denlow
e
e
Defendants.
N
MOTION FOR QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE
ORDER PURSUANT TO HIPAA
Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, through his attorneys, Bernard Roceanova and Daley
& Mohan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1320 (b) and 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164 (HIPAA),
moves the Coutt to enter a Qualified Protective Order and for reasons, state:
1. Plaintiff, a physician, has filed a causc of action alleging personal injury as

aresult of an electric shock received while a guest at Defendant’s hotel.
2. The Plaintiff, treating physicians, hospitals and other health care providers
disclosed by the Plaintift in this case are all “covercd cntities” as defined by 45 CFR
§160, 103. HIPAA prohibits covered entities from disclosing protected health
information in judicial proccedings other than by authorization or Qualified Protective
Order. See 45 CFR §164.512(¢).
3. These covered enfilies are all in possession of “protective health

information™ as defined by 45 CFR §160.103 and §160.501, in the form of medical
notes, physicians’ orders, laboratory results, pathology, correspondence, etc., pertaining

to the Plaintiff. As a physician, the Plaintiff is in possession of “protective health
information” regarding patients whom he has treated, the identity of whom may be
diselosed during the pendency of the litigation.
4, In order to prosecute and delend this case, both parties, their attomeys,
their attorncys’ agents, consultants and various witnesses and other personnel will be
required to receive and review copics of the protective health information referenced
herein.
5. Plaintiff has consulted with Defendant’s counsel, who has no objection to

this Motion.
Wherefore, Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, moves this Court to enter the proposed
Qualified Protective Order permitting the use and disclosure of protective health
information. created or received by any covered entity who has provided health care to
Plaintiff or to whom the Plaintift has rendered care, for any purposc connceted with the
pending litigation.
fCEea—
Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Chicago, IL 60606
312/422-9999
Atty. No. 36564
GTL
1, Bernard Roccanova, an attorncy, hereby certify that on the ® day of June,
2006, I caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion of Qualified Protective Order to be
served on the attorney of record by depositing the same in the U.S. Post Office box
located at 150 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, before the hour of 5:00 p.m,,
addressed as follows:
Robert M. Burke
33 West Monroe
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
Bernard Roccanova
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 1LL1N0[s‘}<f<‘
EASTERN DIVISION ° 6 2006
D&Bl@”
DEAN M. TORIUMI, ; ey u.s. DISTRICT BOURT
Plaintiff, )
v. ) CaseNo.06C 1720
)
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL Y Judge Guzman
)
Defendants. )
NOTICE OF MOTION
To: Robert M. Burke
Johnson & Bell, Lid.
33 West Monroe, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
On June 13, 2006 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, I
shall appear before the honorable Judge Ronald A. Guzman, or any Judge sitting in his
stead, in courtroom 1219 at 219 South Dearborn Strect, Chicago, [llinois and then and
there present PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER,
a copy of which is atached hereto.
73 £, )
Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Atlomeys for Defendants
Chicago, IL 60606
312/422-9999
Atty. No. 36564
R
T
I, Bernard Roccanova, an altoney, hereby certify that on the 6 day of June,
2006, 1 caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion of Qualificd Protective
Order to be served on the attorney of record by depositing the same in the U.8. Post
Office box located ar 150 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, before the hour of 5:00
p.m., addressed as follows:
Robert M. Burke
33 West Monroe
Suite 2700
Chicago, 1L 60603
/}3 o P
Bernard Roccanova
OntrFom 012009 Case: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 27 Filed: 06/06/06 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:102
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge Ronald A. Guzman Sitting Judge if Other

or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 06 C 1720 DATE 6/6/2006
CASE Dean M. Toriumi vs. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., L.L.C.

TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Plaintiff seeks a qualified protective order pursuant to HIPAA permitting him to use and disclose protected health
information pertaining to his own medical treatment and to the treatment he provided his patients. Plaintiff has not,
however: (1) explained why any information relating to his patients is necessary, or even relevant, to this personal
injury suit; or (2) indicated whether he told his patients that he is seeking permission to disclose their protected health
information, so they would have an opportunity to object. Plaintiff’s motion [doc. no. 24] is, therefore, denied without
prejudice. Any amended motion that plaintiff files must be noticed up for a hearing by the court, even if it is agreed.
Docketing to mail notices
Courtroom Deputy LCAM

Tnitials
06C1720 Dean M. Toriumi vs. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LL.C. Page1of 1
OntrFom 012009 Case: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 28 Filed: 06/06/06 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:103
Name of Assigned Judge Ronald A. Guzman Sitting Judge if Other

or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE Dean M. Toriumi vs. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., L.L.C.

TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Plaintiff seeks a qualified protective order pursuant to HIPAA permitting him to use and disclose protected health
information pertaining to his own medical treatment and to the treatment he provided his patients. Plaintiff has not,
however: (1) explained why any information relating to his patients is necessary, or even relevant, to this personal
injury suit; or (2) indicated whether he told his patients that he is seeking permission to disclose their protected health
information, so they would have an opportunity to object. Plaintiff’s motion [doc. no. 24] is, therefore, denied without
prejudice. Any amended motion that plaintiff files must be noticed up for a hearing by the court, even if it is agreed.
Docketing to mail notices
Courtroom Deputy LCAM

Tnitials
06C1720 Dean M. Toriumi vs. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., LL.C. Page1of 1

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 06 C 1720
vs-
Judge Ronald Guzman
Defendant.
NOTICE OF ALLOCATION OF FAULT TO NON-PARTIES
L.L.C., by and through one of its attorneys ROBERT M. BURKE of JOHNSON &
BELL, LTD., and for its Notice of Allocation of Fault to Non-Parties pursuant to
M.C.R. 2.112(K) states that at the time of trial, Defendant may seek an
allocation of fault to the following non-parties. Those specifically named below
stayed in the involved room between December 1, 2005 and the date of the
alleged occurrence referenced in Plaintiff’s complaint:
1. (a) Daryl Totty, 804 Barrington Road, Grosse Pointe, Michigan

48230; i
(b) Waynee Orchowski, address unknown;
(c) David Sekera, 600 Montgomery Street, San Francisco,

California 94111;
(d) Peter Patrone; address unknown;
(e) Eric Warne, 317 Tremont Court, Noblesville, IN 46060;
) Ernest Wooten, 1129 East Brickford, Bloomfield Hills, MI

48302;
(g) Dominic Desano, 1135 East Mifflin Street, Madison, WI

53703;
(h) Justin Weinger, address unknown;

(i) Shawn Sullivan, address unknown;
[4)] Ed Olsen, 1 Auto Club Drive, Dearborn, MI 48126;
(k) Earl Cavanah, address unknown;
(1)) Dave and Rose Mazur, address unknown;
(m) H.John Augustine, address unknown;
(n) Ronald Howard, 17416 Blue Jay Court, Morgan Hill, CA

95037;
(o) Richard Francis, 1 Town Square, Suite 1700, Southfield, MI
48076
(p) Kent Conine, address unknown;
(@) John Ravitch, address unknown;
() Any other occupant of Room 824 in the months prior to the

occurrence alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The basis for the allegation of fault to the aforesaid non-parties is that
one or more of those non-parties broke an electrical plug, appliance, device or
electrical converter in the outlet from which Plaintiff purportedly received an
electrical shock and failed to remove or notify Hotel Personnel of the broken
plug, appliance, device, or electrical converter left in the wall’s electrical outlet.
2. Hybrinetics, Inc., 325 Sutton Place, Santa Rosa, California 95407.
The basis for the allegation of fault to Hybrinetics, Inc., a non-party, is that it is
believed to have designed and manufactured the appliance, plug, device or
electrical converter, which came apart or was otherwise broken and left in the
wall socket of the room wherein Plaintiff was staying on the date of the
occurrence alleged in the Plaintiff’s Complaint. The design and/or manufacture
of the plug, appliance, device or electrical converter, was negligently performed
and/or was improperly designed and manufactured in a defective and

unreasonably unsafe and defective condition when it left the control of the
manufacturer.

Robert M. Burke, one of the
Attorneys for Ritz-Carlton
ROBERT M. BURKE
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No.: 06347

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 06 C 1720
_vs-
Judge Ronald Guzman
Defendant.
NOTICE OF FILING

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
Please take notice that on the 14t: day of June, 2006, Defendant Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Company, L.L.C., filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court,
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, its Notice of Allocation of
Fault to Non-Parties, a copy of which is attached hereto and served upon you.
/s/Robert M. Burke
ROBERT M. BURKE
Chicago, IL 60603
312/372-0770
Atty. No. 6347
PROOF OF SERVICE

addresses on June 14, 2006, by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail located at
33 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603, proper postage prepaid and
affixed thereon.
/s/ Lisa A. Morrison

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to ILL.
REV. STAT. CHAP. 110 §1-109, certify that the
statements set forth herein are true and correct.

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
-vs- )
)
Judge Ronald Guzman
)
Defendant. )
SUPPLEMENTAL PRODUCTION REQUEST
L.L.C., by and through its attorneys, ROBERT M. BURKE of JOHNSON &
BELL, LTD., and pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
hereby requests that Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, produce for inspection,
examination, copying and/or testing, the following designated documents or
tangible items, which are in the possession, custody or control of the minor
Plaintiff or his attorneys or agents, within twenty-eight (28) days.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. It is required that each request be answered based upon your entire
knowledge available from all sources, including all information in your possession
or that of your agents, employees, attorneys, accountants, health care providers,
investigators, and/or other persons acting or purporting to act on your behalf.
2. If you object to any request on the ground that it seeks privileged
information, please identify the portion of the interrogatory to which the objection
applies, state the general nature of the withheld information, identify all persons
having knowledge of the withheld information, and answer the remaining portion
of the request.
3. If your answer is in any way qualified, please state the exact nature
and extent of the qualification.
DEFINITIONS
1. “Document” shall mean any kind of written or graphic matter,
however produced or reproduced, of any kind or description, whether sent or
received or neither, including originals, copies and drafts, and including, but not
limited to: paper, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, tangible things,
correspondence, telegrams, cables telex messages, memoranda, notes, desk
calendars, diaries, notations, work papers, intra and interoffice communications,
intra and inter-department communications, communications to, between and
among officers, agents, partners, secretaries, or any other employees, transcripts,
minutes, reports, and recordings of telephone or other conversations, or
interviews, or of committee meetings or of other meetings, affidavits, statements,
summaries, opinions, indices, studies, analyses, evaluations, insurance policies,
contracts, licenses, agreements, balance sheets, income statements,
questionnaires, answers to questionnaires, statistical records, appointment
books, telephone logs, lists, tabulations, charts, graphs, maps, surveys, sound
recordings, data sheets, computer tapes, disks, magnetic tapes, punch cards,
computer printouts, data processing input and output, computer programs,
computer program coding sheets, microfilms, and other records, kept by
electronic, photographic or mechanical means, and things similar to any of the
foregoing, regardless of their author or origin, however denominated by it.
2. Occurrence refers to the events of January 14, 2004, as alleged in
the Plaintiff's Complaint.

3. Statement shall mean and include any written, recorded, or
transcribed statement or any summarization or memoranda relating to a
statement, whether written or oral.
4. Witness refers to and shall mean any person with personal
knowledge of any event hereinafter referenced, as well as eyewitnesses.
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED
1. Any and all documents which Plaintiff intends to rely upon to

support his wage loss claim in this action.
o KUV ikl
Robert M. Bufke, one of the
Attorneys for Ritz-Carlton
ROBERT M. BURKE
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No.: 06347

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
-vs- )
)
Defendant. )

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
The undersigned, a non-attorney, deposes and states that he has served
the enclosed Supplemental Production Request Submitted on Behalf of the
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., to the above named attorneys of record
in this cause by hand delivering a copy of same on July 7, 2006.
MMA
[x I certify &/ statsfaents set_for)) herein are truc and
correct,

55 East Monroe Street, #4100
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
#1440475

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
V. )
COMPANY, L.L.C, ) Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
)
Defendant. )
MOTION
NOW COMES the Defendant, RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,
L.L.C., (hereinafter “Ritz-Carlton”), by and through one of its attorneys,
ROBERT M. BURKE of JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., and moves this Honorable
Court for leave to file its Third Party Complaint for Contribution against
Hybrinetics, Inc., or in the alternative, moves this Honorable Court to rule that
Michigan Law governs the allocation of fault/contribution issue, and based
upon Michigan Law, to deny this Motion since Michigan law does not allow
contribution actions. In support thereof, Defendant states the following:
1. Plaintiff initiated the above captioned lawsuit on January 10, 2006
by filing a Complaint seeking recovery in the Circuit Court of Cook County for
certain personal injuries allegedly sustained by him on January 14, 2004.
2. This action was subsequently removed to Federal Court and has
been proceeding as an action properly removed since March 29, 2006.
3. This Court has entered an Order requiring that the parties seek
leave to amend any pleadings on or before July 21, 2006. Defendant seeks
leave to file the attached Third Party Complaint for Contribution in accordance
with the scheduling order entered by this Court, or in the alternative, seeks a
ruling that Michigan law governs this action and prohibits contribution claims.
3. Based upon information and belief, Hybrinetics, Inc., whose
principal place of business is located in California, designed and manufactured
a certain plug adapter/voltage converter, a portion of which was purportedly
left in an outlet in Room 824 at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel located in Dearborn,
Michigan, which portion of the aforesaid appliance allegedly caused the Plaintiff
to sustain an electrical shock leading to the injuries alleged herein.
4. In Illinois, contribution actions among joint tortfeasors are
permitted. See 740 ILCS 100/0.01, et seq.
5. Michigan law, on the other hand, does not allow contribution
actions since liability for tort damages is several only and not joint. See M.C.L.
Section 600.2956.
6. Moreover, M.C.R. 2.112(k) provides that a party shall file notice of
its intent to allocate fault to non parties, which Defendant has already done in
this action, on June 14, 2006.
7. Illinois Courts apply the law of the State where the injury
occurred, in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties, unless Illinois
has a more significant relationship with the occurrence and the parties than
does the state where the incident occurred.
8. In analyzing the choice of law issue, specifically in regard to
Illinois’ position on whether to allow contribution actions or not, Illinois State
Courts and Federal Courts, in applying Illinois choice of law rules, have both
determined that the contribution/allocation of fault rules should be governed
by the State where the tortious conduct occurred. See Mech. V. Pullman
Standard, 136 Ill.App.3d 939, 484 N.E.2d 776 (1 Dist. 1984); Piska v. General
Motors Corporation, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21 861 (N.D. Ill. 2004); Consolidated
R. Corp. v. Allied Corp, 882 F2d 254 (7t Cir. 1989).
8. The injury here involved occurred in Michigan and the involved
hotel is located in Michigan. There is no reason to hold that Illinois law has a
more significant relationship to the occurrence than does Michigan; therefore,
Michigan law should apply here.
9. Defendant seeks leave of Court to file its Third Party Complaint or
a ruling that it may not do so because Michigan substantive law governs this
action and bars the contribution action.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C.,
prays that this Honorable Court grant it leave to file its Third Party Complaint
for Contribution against Hybernetics, Inc., or in the alternative, prays that this
Honorable Court deny said Motion based on its determination that Michigan’s
substantive law governs this matter and bars the contribution action.
Respectfully submitted

Robert M. Burke, One of the
Company, Inc.
ROBERT M. BURKE
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No. 06347

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
V. )
)
Defendant. )
)
))
COMPANY, L.L.C.,
Third Party Plaintiff,
)
-vs- )
)
HYBRINETICS, INC., )
)
Third Party Defendant, )
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION
L.L.C., by and through one of its attorneys, ROBERT M. BURKE of JOHNSON &
BELL, LTD. and for its Third Party Complaint for Contribution, plead in the
alternative to its Answer, states the following:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, initiated the above captioned lawsuit
by filing an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, on or
about January 10, 2006
2. The action was removed to the Northern District of Illinois
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441, et. seq.

3. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company,
L.L.C., is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of
Delaware with its principal place of business located in Bethesda, Maryland.
Its members are citizens of the States of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia.
See Defendant’s Notice of Removal.
4. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Illinois.
5. Federal jurisdiction is properly premised upon the diversity of
citizenship of the parties.
6. Venue is proper in this judicial district in that the Defendant is
subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.
COUNT 1
(CONTRIBUTION- NEGLIGENCE)
7. Plaintiff was allegedly injured on or about January 14, 2004 when
he received an electrical shock while staying at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in
Dearborn, Michigan.
8 On and prior to the date of the occurrence, Hybrinetics, Inc.
designed, manufactured, sold and distributed certain plug adapter/voltage
converter adapters.
9. Hybrinetics, Inc. sold a particular plug adapter/voltage converter
adapter which became broken and was left in an outlet at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
in Dearborn, Michigan prior to the date that Plaintiff stayed in room 824 at the
subject hotel.
10. Hybrinetics, Inc. owed a duty to design, manufacture and
distribute a plug adapter which was reasonably safe for its intended and
foreseeable use.
11. While Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C., denies that its conduct contributed in any way to cause
Plaintiff's injuries and damages, in the alternative to those denials,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff states that if Plaintiff or any other party to this
litigation establishes that Hybrinetics, Inc. caused or contributed to cause
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages in one or more or all of the following respects,
then Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. is entitled to contribution from
Hybrinetics, Inc.:
(a) Designed, manufactured and distributed a plug

adapter/voltage converter which was not reasonably safe
for its intended use in that it broke or otherwise came apart
in such a fashion as to present a risk of electrical shock;
(b) Designed, manufactured and distributed a plug

adapter/voltage converter which was not reasonably safe in
that it failed to contain appropriate warnings;
(c) Designed, manufactured, and distributed a plug

for its intended and foreseeable use in that it failed to
operate in a safe manner;
(d) Was otherwise guilty of designing, manufacturing and

distributing a plug adapter/voltage converter which was not
reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable use.
12. As a direct and proximate result of one or more or all of the
aforesaid acts and/or omissions of the Third Party Defendant, Hybrinetics, Inc.,
Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries and damages.
13. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff denies any liability to the Plaintiff;
however, if the Plaintiff proves that he is entitled to any recovery whatsoever,
then Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff asserts that its liability is far less in degree
than that of the Third Party Defendant, Hybrinetics, Inc.

14. In the alternative to the denials contained in this Defendant’s
Answer, this Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to
contribution from Hybrinetics in an amount equal to Hybrinetics, Inc.’s
percentage of fault which proximately caused or contributed to cause the
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, all in accordance with the Illinois Contribution
Among Joint Tortfeasor’s Act.
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL
COMPANY, L.L.C., prays that judgment be entered in its favor and against
Third Party Defendant, HYBRINETICS, INC., in an amount equal to the sum
which would represent the relative degree to which the fault of Hybrinetics,
Inc.’s conduct proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries and damages plus costs of
suit.
COUNT I
(CONTRIBUTION - NEGLIGENCE)
Dearborn, Michigan.
16. On and prior to the date of the occurrence, Hybrinetics, Inc.
converter.
which became broken and was left in an outlet at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in
Dearborn, Michigan prior to the date that Plaintiff stayed in room 824 at the
subject hotel.
18. Hybrinetics, Inc. owed a duty to exercise due care and caution in
the design, manufacture and distribution of the plug adapter/voltage converter
involved in this litigation,
19. While Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
then Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., is entitled to contribution from
Hybrinetics. Inc.:
(a) Carelessly and negligently, designed, manufactured and

distributed a plug adapter/voltage converter which was not
reasonably safe for its intended use in that it broke or
otherwise came apart in such a fashion as to present a risk
of electrical shock;
(b) Carelessly and negligently designed, manufactured and

reasonably safe in that it failed to contain appropriate
warnings;
(c) Carelessly and negligently, Designed, manufactured, and

reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable use in that
it failed to operate in a safe manner;
(d) Was otherwise careless and negligent in designing,

manufacturing and distributing a plug adapter/voltage
converter which was not reasonably safe for its intended
and foreseeable use.

22. In the alternative to the denials contained in this Defendant’s Answer,
this Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to contribution
from Hybrinetics in an amount equal to Hybrinetics, Inc.’s percentage of fault
which proximately caused or contributed to cause the Plaintiff’s injuries and
damages, all in accordance with the Illinois Contribution Among Joint
Tortfeasor’s Act.
suit.

Company, Inc.
ROBERT M. BURKE
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No. 06347

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
v. )
)
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF MOTION
TO: Larry A. Appelbaum

Linn & Campe, Ltd.
215 North Martin Luther King Avenue
Waukegan, IL 60085
On July 18, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. I shall appear before the Honorable Judge
Judge Ronald Guzman in Room 1219 of the United States District Court, 219
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, and then and there present defendant’s
Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim, a copy of which is attached hereto and
hereby served upon you.
NAME: JOHNSON & BELL, LTD. ATTY. FOR: Defendants

ADDRESS: 33 West Monroe Street CITY: Chicago, IL 60603
PHONE: (312) 372-0770 ATTORNEY NO. 06347
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
The undersigned, a non-attorney, on oath states I served this notice by

mailing a copy to the above mentioned attorneys at their respective addresses, by
placing same in the U.S. Mail Facility, at 33 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois,
proper postage prepaid before 5:00 P.M., on this 11t day of July, 2006.
/s/Lisa A. Morrison
] Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to ILL. REV.
STAT. CHAP. 110 81-109, T certify that the statements set
forth herein are true and correct.

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
V. )
)
Defendant. )
)
))
COMPANY, L.L.C.,
)
-vs- )
)
)

COUNT 1
Dearborn, Michigan.
converter adapters.
subject hotel.
foreseeable use.
Hybrinetics, Inc.:





suit.
COUNT I
Dearborn, Michigan.
converter.
subject hotel.
involved in this litigation,
Hybrinetics. Inc.:


warnings;



Tortfeasor’s Act.
suit.

Company, Inc.
ROBERT M. BURKE
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No. 06347

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
v. )
)
Defendant. )
)
COMPANY, L.L.C., ;
Third Party Plaintiff, )
)
-vs- )
)
)
NOW COMES the Defendant, RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, 'y


COUNT I
Dearborn, Michigan.
converter adapters.
subject hotel.
foreseeable use.
Hybrinetics, Inc.:





suit.
COUNT II
Dearborn, Michigan.
converter.
subject hotel.
involved in this litigation.
Hybrinetics. Inc.:


warnings;



Tortfeasor’s Act.
suit,

Company, Inc.
ROBERT M. BURKE
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No. 06347

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 06 C 1720
—vs-
Judge Ronald Guzman
Defendant.
NOTICE OF FILING

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
Please take notice that on the 18t day of July, 2006, Defendant Ritz-Carlton
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, its Third Party Complaint
for Contribution, a copy of which is attached hereto and served upon you.
/s/Robert M. Burke
ROBERT M. BURKE
33 West Monroe Street, #2700 i
Chicago, IL 60603
312/372-0770
Atty. No. 6347
PROOF OF SERVICE

addresses on July 18, 2006, by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail located at 33
West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603, proper postage prepaid and affixed |
thereon. |
|

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Date: 7/18/2006 Case No. 1:06-cv-01720
Case Title: Judge: Ronald A. Guzman

Toriumi v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel
NOTICE OF CORRECTION
The following error was found in document no. 34
DThe document has been filed in the incorrect case.

DThe document is filed in the correct case, but the case number and case title do not match.
Dl"he incorrect document (PDF file) was linked to the entry (incomplete (PDF file)).
Dl"he incorrect file date was entered.
Dl"he incorrect type of event was used to describe the document.
Dl"he title of the document does not match the text of the entry.
he entry is a duplicate of entry no. 33
E‘Other:
Corrective action taken by the Clerk:
DThe text of the entry has been edited and the PDF file has been replaced.
Dl"he following notation has been added to the text of the entry: (Linked document has the
incorrect case title or linked document has the incorrect case number.)
DThe correct document (PDF file) has been linked to the entry.
Dl"he file date has been corrected.
DThe text of the entry has been edited.
The text of the entry has been edited to read “Duplicate filing of document number.”
Ebther:
Corrective action required by the filer:

he document must be refiled.
ther:
Corrected document has been refiled.
Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court
Johnnie Patterson
By: s/
Deputy Clerk
NDIL (10/05) Notice of Correction
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Case Number: 06CV1720 Assigned/Issued By: DaJ
Judge Name: GUZMAN Designated Magistrate Judge: DENLOW
FEE INFORMATION
Amount Due: $350.00 $39.00 $5.00
IFP No Fee Other
$455.00
Number of Service Copies Date:
(For Use by Fiscal Department Only)
Amount Paid: Receipt #:
Date Payment Rec’d: Fiscal Clerk:
ISSUANCES
Summons Alias Summons
v/| Third Party Summons Lis Pendens
Non Wage Garnishment Summons Abstract of Judgment
‘Wage-Deduction Garnishment Summons

(Victim, Against and $ Amount)
Citation to Discover Assets
Writ
(Type of Writ)
1 Original and 1 copieson 07/18/06 asto HYBRINETICS INC

(Date)
C:\wpwin80\docket\feeinfo.fim 03/14/05

Eastern Division
Dean M Toriumi
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:06—cv—01720
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, July 18, 2006:
MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman :MOTION by Defendant The

Ritz—Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. for leave to file Third Party Complaint for
Contribution [32] is granted, Motion hearing held on 7/18/2006 regarding motion for
leave to file[32]. Status hearing set for 8/8/2006 at 09:30 AM.Mailed notice(cjg, )

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
V. )
COMPANY, LL.C., ) Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
)
Defendant. )
AGREED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
Carlton”), by and through one of its attorneys, Robert M. Burke of JOHNSON & BELL, LTD.,
and hereby moves this Honorable Court pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for an enlargement of time and in support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
1. Plaintiff initiated the above captioned lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, On January 10, 2006, secking recovery for alleged personal injuries he sustained on
January 14, 2004.
2. Defendant, Ritz-Carlton, subsequently removed this matter to Federal Court and
this case has been proceeding as an action properly removed since March 20, 2006.
3. On April 13, 2006, Ritz-Carlton, filed a Motion to Transfer Venue of this matter
to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, arguing, in part, that Michigan is the
situs of the majority of the material witnesses and events at issue herein, that Michigan law
governs this action, and significantly, that Michigan is the place where Plaintiff’s alleged injury
occurred. (Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue has yet to be ruled on by this Honorable
Court).
4, On July 11, 2006, Ritz-Carlton filed a Motion seeking leave from this Honorable
Court to file Ritz-Carlton’s Third-Party Complaint for Contribution against Hybernetics, Inc., or
in the alternative, requested that this Honorable Court deny said motion based on its
determination that Michigan’s substantive law governs this matter and bars any contribution
action herein.
5. While this Honorable Court has yet to rule as to whether Michigan’s substantive
law would govern this matter, it granted Ritz-Carlton leave of Court to file its contribution action
against Hybernetics, Inc. on July 18, 2006. A summons to the Third-Party Defendant has been
issued and is in the process of being served on the Third-Party Defendant in California.
6. Prior to this, on April 20, 2006, this Honorable Court entered a Scheduling Order,
requiring that fact discovery be completed by August 31, 2006.
7. Ritz-Carlton respectfully requests an enlargement of time for the completion of
fact discovery on the basis that this Honorable Court has yet to rule on Ritz-Carlton’s Motion to
Transfer Venue or on the issue of whether Michigan substantive law will be applied to this case.
In addition, the vast majority of material fact witnesses pertinent to this case reside in Michigan.
Three of the important witnesses no longer work for Defendant; however, Defendant is trying to
arrange for the depositions of two of its former employees who still reside in Michigan. Medical
records subpoenas have been issued and compliance is overdue. The deponents have promised to
produce the requested records shortly. Lastly, and most importantly, Third-Party Defendant,
Hybernetics, Inc., has yet to appear in this matter and proceeding with further fact discovery prior
to Hybernetics, Inc.’s appearance herein is likely to result in duplicative discovery and
depositions.
8. Counsel for Defendant, Ritz-Carlton, has consulted with counsel for Plaintiff,
Dean Toriumi, and Plaintiff’s counsel has no objection to an extension of fact discovery that
would permit sufficient time for Hybernetics, Inc. to appear.
9. Further, Defendant, Ritz-Carlton, brings this motion in good faith and not for the
purposes of delay.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., hereby prays for an
enlargement of time for fact discovery to be completed that would permit sufficient time for
Hybernetics, Inc. to appear herein, or any other relief this Honorable Court deems equitable and
just.
Respectfully submitted, this 27th day of July 2006

Mr. Robert M. Burke
Chicago, llinois 60603
Telephone: (312) 372-0770

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
AN
Plaintiff,
Case No.: 06 C 1720
AN
V.
Judge Ronald Guzman
COMPANY, LL.C, Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
Defendant.
NOTICE OF MOTION
TO: Mr. Bernard Roccanova

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Please take notice that on the 1% Day of August, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., Defendant,
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., shall appear before the Homorable Ronald
Guzman or any judge sitting in his stead, in Room 1219, in the United States District
Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and then and there present
its Agreed Motion for Enlargement of Time, a copy of which is attached hereto and
served upon you.
I, Robert M. Burke, certify that I caused service of this Notice of Motion and
Defendant’s Agreed Motion for Enla{‘gemem of Time to Bernard Roccanova by U.S. Mail
at his address shown above on this 27" day of July 2006.
/s/ Robert M. Burke
Mr. Robert M. Burke

Telephone: (312) 372-0770

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff; )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
v. )
COMPANY, LL.C, ) Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
)
Defendant. )
Certificate of Service
The undersigned states that a copy of the foregoing Agreed Motion for Enlargement of
Time was served by electronic means concurrent with the filing of the aforementioned with the
Court’s ECF/CM system on July 27, 2006 on:
Mr. Bernard Roccanova

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
150 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1550

Mr. Robert M. Burke
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Jul 28 06 02:44pCasejahi@Stare1720 Document #: 43 Filed: 08/01/06 fiaggelfial PagelD #:]43
AO 441 (Rev. 09/00) Third Pacty Summons in a Civil Action

RETURN OF SERVICE
DATE ']_Z g ‘U@ 2.00 M.
Service of the Summons and complaint was made by me™
E OF SERVER (PRINT) TITLE

PRIVATE TaWESTTGATOR
service
of od
"Chack one bax below to indicate appropriate meth
225 Surton PLACE

G Served personally upon the third-party defendant. Place where
ST RO, CA,
a person of suitable age and
G Left copies thereof at the defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with
discretion then residing therein,
‘Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:
G Returned unexecuted:
G Other (specify):
STATEMENT
OF SERVICE FEES
OTAg i -
[TRAVEL SERVICES #
ép é 0
DECIARATIQN OF SERVER
fesocuted on 7-28-06 fl y: deped” -

Lt
Date Signature of Server
GlG 163 MIE: ShnSTh QosH, A, 95402

ss
of Server
"Addre
(1) As 1o who may serve a summons see Rule 4 of the Federal Rulos of Civil Procedure.

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
-vs- )
)
Judge Ronald Guzman
)
Defendant. )
NOTICE OF FILING

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
Please take notice that on the 1=t day of August, 2006, Defendant Ritz-Carlton
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, its Return of Service of
Third Party Summons, a copy of which is attached hereto and served upon you.
/s/Robert M. Burke
ROBERT M. BURKE
Chicago, IL 60603
312/372-0770
Atty. No. 6347
PROOF OF SERVICE

addresses on August 1, 2006, by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail located at
33 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603, proper postage prepaid and
affixed thereon.


Eastern Division
Dean M Toriumi
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:06—cv—01720
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, August 4, 2006:
MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman :Motion for extension of

time[40] is granted, Motion hearing held on 8/4/2006 regarding motion for extension of
time[40]. Fact discovery extended to 10/23/06. Plaintiff's expert reports by 12/18/06.
Defendant's expert reports by 3/5/07. Dispositive motions due by 4/10/06. Status hearing
reset for 10/25/2006 at 09:30 AM.Mailed notice(cjg, )

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No.: 06 C 1720
)
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC ) Judge Ronald Guzman
)
Defendant. )
)
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC )
)
Third-Party Plaintiff, )
vs. )
)
)
Third-Party Defendant. )
ANSWER TO THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION
NOW COMES, the Third-Party Defendant, HYBRINETICS, INC., by and through its
attorneys, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, and for its Answer
to the Third-Party Complaint for Contribution states as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, initiated the above captioned lawsuit by filing an action in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, on or about January 10, 2006.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph one.
2. The action was removed to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 USC § 1441,
et. seq.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph two.
342622.1
3. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC is a limited liability
company formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in Bethesda, Maryland. Its members are citizens of the States of Maryland, Delaware
and Virginia.
Answer: Upon information and belief, the Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations
contained within paragraph three.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph four.
5. Federal jurisdiction is properly premised upon the diversity of citizenship of the parties.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph five.
6. Venue is proper in this judicial district in that the Defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction in this district.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph six.
7. Plaintiff was allegedly injured on or about January 14, 2004 when he received an
electrical shock while staying at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Dearborn, Michigan.
contained within paragraph seven.
8. On and prior to the date of the occurrence, Hybrinetics, Inc. designed, manufactured, sold
and distributed certain plug adapter/voltage converter adapters.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant manufactures and sells certain voltage converters. The
Third-Party Defendant denies all remaining allegations contained within paragraph eight.
342622.1
9. Hybrinetics, Inc. sold a particular plug adapter/voltage converter adapter which became
broken and was left in an outlet at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Dearborn, Michigan prior to the date
that Plaintiff stayed in room 824 at the subject hotel.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant did not sell certain voltage converters to the Ritz-
Carlton in Dearborn, Michigan. Answering further the Third-Party Defendant denies the
remaining allegations contained within paragraph nine.
10. Hybrinetic, Inc. owed a duty to design, manufacture and distribute a plug adapter which
was reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable use.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant acknowledges that there is a duty to manufacture and
distribute its voltage converters in a reasonably safe manner. Answering further, the Third-Party
Defendant denies that it breached said duty.
11. While Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC denies that its
conduct contributed in any way to cause Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, in the alternative to
those denials, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff states that if Plaintiff or any other party to this
litigation establishes that Hybrinetic, Inc. caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff’s injuries and
damages in one or more or all of the following respects, then Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC
is entitled to contribution from Hybrinetics, Inc.:
a. designed, manufactured and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe for its intended use
in that it broke or otherwise came apart in such a fashion as to
present a risk of electrical shock;
b. designed, manufactured and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe in that it failed to
contain appropriate warnings;
c. designed, manufactured and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe for its intended and
foreseeable use in that it failed to operate in a safe manner;
342622.1
d. was otherwise guilty of designing, manufacturing and

Answer: The Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph eleven,
including subparts a-d.
12. As a direct and proximate result of one or more or all of the aforesaid acts and/or
omissions of the Third Party Defendant, Hybrinetics, Inc., Plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries
and damages.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph twelve.
13. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff denies any liability to the Plaintiff; however, if the
Plaintiff proves that he is entitled to any recovery whatsoever, then Defendant/Third Party
Plaintiff asserts that its liability is far less in degree than that of Third Party Defendant,
Hybrinetics, Inc.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph
thirteen.
14. In the alternative to the denials contained in this Defendant’s Answer, this
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to contribution from Hybrinetics in an
amount equal to Hybrinetics, Inc.’s percentage of fault which proximately caused or contributed
to cause the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, all in accordance with the Illinois Contribution
fourteen.
342622.1
‘WHEREFORE, the Third-Party Defendant, HYBRINETICS INC., prays that the Third
Party Complaint for Contribution be dismissed and that judgment be entered in its favor and
against Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, Ritz-Carlton Hotel, including the award of costs
wrongfully incurred in the defense of this matter, and any other relief this Court deems just and
appropriate.
Answer: Upon information and belief, the Third Party Defendant admits the allegations
contained within paragraph fifteen.
Answer: The Third Party Defendant manufactures and sells certain voltage converters.
Answering further the Third Party Defendant denies all remaining allegations contained within
paragraph sixteen.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant did not sell certain voltage converters to the Ritz-Carlton
in Dearborn, Michigan. Answering further the Third-Party Defendant denies the remaining
allegations contained within paragraph seventeen.
342622.1
a. Carelessly and negligently, designed, manufactured and

distributed a plug adapter/voltage converter which was
not reasonably safe for its intended use in that it broke
or otherwise came apart in such a fashion as to present
arisk of electrical shock;
b. carelessly and negligently designed, manufactured and

not reasonably safe in that it failed to contain appropriate
warnings;
c. carelessly and negligently designed, manufactured and

not reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable use
in that it failed to operate in a safe manner;

nineteen, including sub-parts a - d.
342622.1
and damages.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph twenty.
21. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff denies any liability to the Plaintiff; however, if the
Hybrinetics, Inc.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph twenty-
one.
two.
appropriate.
342622.1
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
attorneys, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, and for its
Affirmative Defenses to the Third-Party Complaint for Contribution states as follows:
1. That if allegations contained in Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Third Party Complaint
for Contribution are true, which this Third-Party Defendant denies, Plaintiff’s contributory
negligence reduces any recover Plaintiff may receive in this case as a result of his conduct in one
or more of the following acts and/or omissions:
a. Plaintiff was careless and negligent in touching an electrical plug;
b. Plaintiff was careless and negligent in touching the bare wires of the converter;
c. Plaintiff was otherwise negligent and/or careless.
for Contribution are true, which this Defendant denies, Plaintiff’s contributory negligence is
greater than 50 percent and thus Plaintiff is barred from any recover in this case as a result of his
conduct in one or more of the following acts and/or omissions:
3. That if this Honorable Court finds that the State of Michigan substantive law applies in
this case, then the Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Third Party Complaint for Contribution is
barred as Michigan law does not allow contribution actions. See M.C.L. § 600.2956.
342622.1
appropriate.
By:___/s/Lisa Handler Ackerman

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant
Charles W. Planek
Lisa Handler Ackerman
Kamilah A. Parker
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ
EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
120 N. LaSalle Street
26" Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
312.704.0550
342622.1
The undersigned certifies that on August 16, 2006, this document was electronically filed
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing
to the following:
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
150 N. Wacker Drive — Suite 1550
Robert M. Burke
33 W. Monroe Street — Suite 2700
/s/ Lisa Handler Ackerman
10
342622.1

In the Matter of:
Dean M. Toriumi v. The Rit=-Carlton Hotel Company, et al.
Case Number:
06C1720
Third-Party Defendant Hybrinetics, Inc.
SIGNATURE

FIRM
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP
STREET ADDESS
120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600
CITY/STATE/ZIP

ID NUMBER TELEPHONE NUMBER
6269896 312-704-0550
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES No O
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES O NO X
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES O NO X
IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES K NoQO
RETAINED COUNSEL O APPOINTED COUNSEL O
342891.1
to the following:
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
342891.1
-0
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT KC F l L E D
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AUG 1 6 2006
In the Matter of: MIGHAEL W: DOBBINS

BLERK, U8, DISTRICT COURT.
Dean M. Toriumi v. The Ritz-Carlton 1lotel Company, et al.
Case Number:
06C1720
AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY TIIE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:
SIGNATURE
Charles W. Planek m QM
STREET ADDESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP
Chicago, Tllinois 60602
IDNUMBER TELEPHONE NUMBER

6181259 312-704-0550
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES @
ARFE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSET. TN THIS CASE? VoS O
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES O
IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES @
I FHIS 154 CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.
342890.1
The undersigned, a non-attorney, hereby certifics that a true and correct copy of Third
Party Defendanl’s Appearance was scrved on:
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Chicago, [ilinois 60606
Robert M. Burke
By depositing same in the 1S Mail at 120 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602 with proper
postage prepaid, on or before 5:00 p.m. on this 16" day of August, 2006.
U
00,
)
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me
This 16® day of August, 2006.
OFFICIAL SEAL
JANETTE GILLESPIE
NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF ILLINOIS
Notary Public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 05108108
342890.]
s
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT KC F ’ L E D

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AUG 14 2006
I the Mterof: . MICHAE,.

B, U fadts
Dean M. Toriumi v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, et al.
Case Number:
06C1720
AN APPEARANC IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGN AS ATTORNEY FOR:

E ED
SIGNATURE e
Kamilah A. Parker //W 7 L/2 G
FIRM
‘STRELT ADDESS o
CITY/STATE/ZIP
D NUMBER _ TELEPHONE NUMBER
6279348 312-704-0550
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NoO

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YESO NOH
"ARE'YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT'S TRIAL BAR? "YES O NO®
[F THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES® nNoO
IF THIS 13 A CRIMINAL CASE, CIIECK THI: BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.
342888.1
. Case: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 49 Filed: 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2 PagelD #:161
The undersigned, a non-attorney, hereby certifics that a true and correct copy of Third
Party Defendant’s Appearance was served on:
Bemard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M, Burke
Chicago, Tllinois 60603
By depositing same in the US Mail at 120 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602 with proper
postage prepaid, on or before 5:00 p.m. on this 160 day of August, 2006.
' LA
U (J
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN (o before me
This 16™ day of August, 2006.
OFFICIAL SEAL
JANETTE GILLESPIE
MY COMMIESION EXPIRES 051808
342KBR 1

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vS. ) Case No.: 06 C 1720
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
vS. )
)
)
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, HYBRINETICS, INC.S, ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT.

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY’S INTERROGATORIES
attorneys, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, and for its Answers
to Defendants’, RITZ-CARLTON’S HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., Interrogatories, states as
follows:
1. State the full name, present address, and job title of the individual answering these
interrogatories on behalf of the Defendant.
ANSWER: Rick Rosa, President

Hybrinetics, Inc.
P.O. Box 14399
Santa Rosa, CA 95402
2. State the full name and address of each person who witnesses or claims to have
witnessed the occurrence in your Complaint.
ANSWER: Other than the plaintiff involved in the occurrence, I have no knowledge as to
any additional witnesses; investigation continues.
348070.1
3. State the full name and address of each person not named in Interrogatory No. 3
above who was present or claims to have been present at the scene immediately before, at the
time of, or immediately after said occurrence.
ANSWER: Investigation continues as to all persons who were present or claims to have
been present at the scene immediately before, at the time of and/or
immediately after said occurrence; will supplement new and/or additional
information when it becomes available.
4. Were any photographs taken of the scene of the occurrence or of the persons or
instrumentalities involved? If so, state the date or dates on which such photographs were taken,
the subjects thereof, and who now has custody of them.
ANSWER: This defendant is not in possession of any such photographs; investigation

continues. Will supplement new and/or additional information if and when it
becomes available.
5. Do you have statements from any witness or party other than yourself? If so, give
the name and address of each such witness, the date of said statement, and state whether such
statement was written or oral.
ANSWER: This defendant is not in possession of any such statements; investigation

continues. Will supplement new and/or additional information if and when it
becomes available.
6. List the names and addresses of all other persons (other than yourself and persons
theretofore listed or specifically excluded) who have knowledge of the facts of said occurrence
or of the injuries and damages following therefrom.
ANSWER: Investigation continues as to the names and addresses of all persons whom
have knowledge of the facts of the occurrence and/or of the injuries and
damages allegedly following therefrom; will supplement new and/or
additional information if and when it becomes available.
348070.1
7. If you were insured under a policy of insurance providing for coverage relative to
the incident alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, list the name of the insurance carrier, the effective
dates of the policy, the policy number, and the limits afforded by that policy.
ANSWER: Acordia;
Policy No. MZX 80823149;
Effective: 01/01/04 to 01/01/05;
General Aggregate Limit (Other than Products Completed
Operations) - $2,000,000;
Products — Completed Operations Aggregate Limit - $2,000,000;
Personal & Advertising Injury Limit - $1,000,000;
Each Occurrence Limit - $1,000,000;
Fire Damage Limit (Any One Fire) $100,000;
Medical Expense Limit (Any One Person) $5,000.
8. Did Hybrinetics, Inc. manufacture the appliance/energy converter which
incorporated the plug, photographed and attached hereto as Exhibit “A”? If so, please list the
location where said appliance/energy converter was manufactured, the date of manufacture, and
the date of first sale or shipment.
ANSWER: Hybrinetics objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it has not yet had
an opportunity to fully inspect the subject plug, photographed and attached
as Exhibit “A”. However, without waiving said objection, Hybrinetics states
that the “plug” photographed and attached as Exhibit “A” appears to be
part of an “adapter plug”. Hybrinetics is not in the business of
manufacturing “appliance/energy converters” or “adapter plugs” but does
manufacture and design voltage converters.
9. Is Hybrinetics aware of any other instances where an appliance/energy converter,
such as the one which incorporate the plug, photographed and attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, or
the plug separated from the appliance/energy converter consistent with what is depicted in the
photograph? If so, please list the number of such occurrences and whether Hybrinetics, Inc.
changed the design of the product to prevent energy separation.
ANSWER: Hybrinetics objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is not familiar
with the term “appliance/energy converters” and has not yet had an
opportunity to fully inspect the subject plug, photographed and attached as
Exhibit “A”. Further, without waiving said objection, Hybrinetics states that
the “plug” photographed and attached as Exhibit “A” appears to be part of
an “adapter plug” a product that Hybrinetics does not manufacture and/or
3
348070.1
design. Answering further, Hybrinetics has no knowledge of instances

wherein, an adaptor plug separated from a voltage converter as these are two
different products that are not dependent on the other.
10. How was the plug, photographed and attached to these interrogatories as Exhibit
“A”, incorporated into and/or fastened to the appliance/energy converter to which it was
incorporated (i.e., glued, screwed, welded, or otherwise incorporated into the appliance/energy
converter)?
as Exhibit “A”. However, without waiving said objection, Hybrinetics
affirmatively states that it is not in the business of manufacturing and/or
designing appliance/energy converters and/or adapter plugs and therefore, is
unable to give a qualified opinion as to its construction and/or design.
Answering further, the “adapter plug” depicted in Exhibit “A” is not
incorporated in any way to the voltage converters that Hybrinetics
manufactures. However, on information and belief, the product may be sonic
sealed.
11. Identify the designer of the appliance/energy converter which incorporated the
plug, photographed and attached to these interrogatories as Exhibit “A”. Identify the name and
address of the designer.
as Exhibit “A”. However, without waiving said objection, Hybrinetics
affirmatively states that the plug, photographed and attached as Exhibit “A”
appears to be part of an “adapter plug”. Answering further, this Defendant
states that without making a full and complete inspect of the subject plug,
photographed and attached as Exhibit “A”, it is unable to comment as to the
identity and/or address of the designer.
12 Are the appliance/energy converters, which incorporated the plug, photographed
and attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, still being manufactured? If not, list the last date that said
appliance/energy converters were manufactured.
4
348070.1
as Exhibit “A”. Further, Hybrinetics has no knowledge as it relates to

“appliance/energy converters” and affirmatively states that the plug,
photographed and attached as Exhibit “A” appears to be part of an “adapter
plug”. Therefore, without waiving its objection, Hybrinetics states that until
it is able to make a full and complete inspection of the subject plug, it is
unable to comment as to whether the plug is still being manufactured.
13. Were the appliance/energy converters, which incorporated the plug, photographed
and attached to these interrogatories as Exhibit “A”, modified in any way since their original
design? If so, list the date of each design change and the nature of each such change.
as Exhibit “A”. Consequently, Hybrinetics is unable to comment as to the
whether the subject plug was modified in any way since its original design.
14. List the inclusive dates during which the appliance/energy converter, which
incorporated the plug, photographed and attached to these interrogatories as Exhibit “A”, was
manufactured.
as Exhibit “A”. Consequently, Hybrinetics is unable to comment as to the
inclusive dates when the subject plug was manufactured.
s/s: Kamilah A. Parker

Charles W. Planek
Kamilah A. Parker
26" Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
312.704.0550
348070.1
VERIFICATION
The undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and
correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief, and as to such
matters, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true.
/s/: Rick Rosa
348070.1
The undersigned certifies that on September 27, 2006 this document was electronically
filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such
filing to the following:
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
33 W. Monroe Street - Suite 2700
/s/ Karen M. Kremer
348070.1

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No.: 06 C 1720
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
vs. ;
)
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, HYBRINETICS, INC.S, RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT.

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
Response to Defendant, RITZ-CARLTON’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, states as follows:
1. All oral or written statements of all parties given or transferred to some other
person or entity other than the attorney for the aforesaid parties.
RESPONSE: None at this time; investigation continues. Will supplement new

and/or additional information if and when it becomes available.
2. The statement of any other witness, except parties to this action.

347964.1
3. All photographs, slides or motion pictures taken before or subsequent to the
alleged occurrence of any person, or other physical objects involved or of the scene of the
alleged occurrence(s).

4. All data as to the physical or mental condition of Dean M. Toriumi, at the time of
the occurrence alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint at Law.

5. A list giving the name, addresses and specialties of all opinion witnesses or expert
witnesses whom you intend to call at trial and/or arbitration.
RESPONSE: This Defendant has not yet identified any witnesses whom they may
call to testify at trial at this time. Defendant reserves the right to
identify and disclose witnesses pursuant to the applicable Rules/
Orders of the Court, and as more information becomes known
through discovery.
6. All data which any opinion witness or expert witness who is identified to testify at
the trial used in arriving at this or her opinions.
through discovery.
7. Copies of all articles, treatises, books or other documents which will be issued at
any depositions or at the trial of this cause.
RESPONSE: Undetermined at this time. Will supplement new and/or additional

information if and when it becomes available.
347964.1
8. An up-to-date and current Curriculum Vitae of each and every opinion witness
who you may call to testify at the trial.
through discovery.
9. All reports and documents prepared by any and all experts or opinion witnesses
who Plaintiff intends to call at trial.
through discovery.
10. All articles, papers, treatises, journals, medical literature and textbooks you will
use during the trial of this action during either direct or cross-examination.

11. Allrules, regulations or guidelines of any public authority which you may use at
the trial of this action.

12. Al rules, regulations, by-laws, or other documents of any association, licensing
authority, accrediting authority, inspecting or reviewing authority, or other private body which
you may use in the trial of this action.

347964.1
13. Any and all records relating to the employment, either actual or potential, of the
plaintiffs.

14. Any and all records relating to any criminal matter that any plaintiff or defendant
is or has ever been charged with.

15. Any and all documents that may be used in the impeachment of any defendant,
any person named by Defendant as an expert in this cause, or any other party or witness who
might be called to testify at the trial of this cause.

16. Any and all notes or summaries of interviews with any witness to the occurrence
complained of, or any person claiming to have knowledge relating to the occurrence complained
of, or the damages alleged to have resulted from the occurrence.

17. Any and all documents used or relied upon in the preparation of the answers to
the interrogatories in this case.

18. Any policy of health insurance or life insurance pursuant to which you or the
decedent were covered at the time of the occurrence, and all records of any payments made
pursuant to said policy of health insurance or life insurance,.
4
347964.1
RESPONSE: This Defendant objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
information that is not relevant to the subject matter involved in this
action and is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
19. Each and every document, including statements, reports, letters or memoranda
from each expert set forth in your answers to interrogatories reflecting the views, opinions or
findings of each such expert, and each and every document reflecting the name, address,
employer, title and position of each person who has received custody or control of each such
document.
through discovery.
20. Each document which each such expert or opinion witness considered or relied
upon in forming each opinion that he or she is expected to testify.
through discovery.
21. Any and all documents identifying or reflecting each test or experiment each
expert set forth in your answers to interrogatories has conducted, has requested to be conducted
or will rely on in his/or testimony in this cause.

347964.1
22. Each and every article, paper, textbook and medical report you intend to use
during the trial of this case, including identification of the author, publisher, date or dates of
publication, edition and the pages to be used.

23. Each and every statute, rule, regulation, guideline or other standard of defendant
or any public authority which you intend to use in the trial of his action, including the citations to
each.

24. For each such witness who may be called to testify at the trial of this cause,
produce all documents reflecting any and all fees that each such witness has charged, is expected
to charge in this case, or which has been paid, and the basis for such fee, charge or payment.
through discovery.
25. Any and all documents reflecting or tending to indicate that:
a. Any plaintiff was confined in a hospital, treated by a physician or x-rayed for any
reason other than personal injury.
b. Any plaintiff had suffered serious personal injury prior to the date of the said
occurrence. If so, state when, where and in general how he or she was injured.
c. Any plaintiff had suffered either (a) any personal injury or (b) serious illness,
since the date of said occurrence.
d. Any plaintiff has ever made any claim or filed any other suit for his or her own
personal injuries.
347964.1

26. Any oral or written statements, signed or unsigned, transcribed or not, or any
memorializations of any statements given or acquired by you, your agents or attorneys, from:
a. Any person or persons having contact with plaintiff or any member of plaintiff’s
family;
b. Any witness to the occurrence complained of;
c. Any person who claims to have knowledge concerning the occurrence complained
of;
d. Any person who claims to have knowledge concerning the damages claimed to
have resulted from the occurrence complained of;
e. Any person who claims to have knowledge concerning any issue in this case;
f. Whether each such statement was written or oral, signed or unsigned and whether
or not transcribed.

27. Any and all photographs, slides, videotapes, radiographic films, or motion
pictures of any nature relevant or relating to any of the issues herein.

28. Copies of all subpoenas compelling the appearance of witnesses at trial and/or
arbitration.

347964.1
29. All documents, books, treatises, codes, standard, regulations, articles, journals,
textbooks or other materials which may be used in the direct or cross-examination of any
witness.

30. Any and all notes or summaries of interviews with any witness to the occurrence
complained of, or any person claiming to have knowledge relating to the occurrence complained
of, or the damages allegedto have resulted from said occurrence.

31. Any and all photographs, descriptions, parts lists, manuals, and other documents
of any kind or nature pertaining to the appliance/voltage converter from which the plug,
photographed and attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, was previously incorporated.

32, Any and all records which indicate when the subject appliance/energy converter,
to which the plug depicted in Exhibit “A” hereto was previously incorporated, was manufactured
and sold.

33, Any and all documents which indicate the location from which the
appliance/energy converter, referenced in paragraph 32 above, was originally shipped and/or
sold.

347964.1
34. Any and all documents indicating that the appliances/energy converters,
manufactured by Hybrinetics, Inc., came apart consistent with the photographs attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”.
RESPONSE: Hybrinetics objects to this Request to the extent that it has not yet had
an opportunity to fully inspect the subject plug, photographed and
attached as Exhibit “A”. However, without waiving said objection,
Hybrinetics affirmatively states that it is not in the business of
manufacturing appliance/energy converters and therefore, is not in
possession of any documents responsive this Request.
35. Any and all records of complaints or investigation into appliance/energy

converters coming apart consistent with the photograph attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

36. Anaffidavit of the party responding which indicates that the listing of documents
is complete.
RESPONSE: Attached.
/s/ Kamilah A. Parker

Charles W. Planek
Kamilah A. Parker
26™ Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
312.704.0550
347964.1
The undersigned certifies that on September 27, 2006 this document was electronically
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
/s/ Karen M. Kremer
10
347964.1

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUM], )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No.: 06 C 1720
)
)
Defendant. ) Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
)
)
vs. )
)
)
AGREED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
NOW COMES the Third Party Defendant, Hybrinetics, Inc., (hereinafter “Hybrinetics”), by
and through its attorney, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP., and
hereby moves this Honorable Court pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6 (b) (1) for
an enlargement of time and in support of its motion, the Third Party Defendant, states as follows:
1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint at Law in the Circuit Court of Cook County for personal
injuries against the Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Inc
on or about January 10, 2006. (See Exhibit 1)
2. The Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Inc. removed
the matter to federal court on or about March 29, 2006. (See Exhibit 2)
3. The Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Inc. was
given leave to file a third party complaint for contribution against Hybrinetics on or about
July 18, 2006. (See Exhibit 3)
353918.1
4. Hybrinetics filed an appearance and answer to the third party complaint on or about
August 16, 2006. (See Exhibit 4)
5. The third party complaint for contribution alleges that Hybrinetics manufactured and
sold an adapter/voltage converter tl{at became broken. (See Exhibit 5)
6. That on September 29, 2006, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, Inc issued a notice of deposition for Rick Rosa, President of Hybrinetics, Inc. to
proceed on October 16, 2006 in Chicago, Illinois. (See Exhibit 6)
7. That Rick Rosa resides in Santa Rosa, California and is not available to travel to
Chicago, Illinois on October 16, 2006 for his deposition.
8. That Counsel for Hybrinetics, has spoken to counsel for Plaintiff he does not have an
objection for an extension of time for the deposition of Rick Rosa.
9. This motion is brought in good faith and not for the purposes of delay.
‘WHEREFORE, Third Pariy Defendant, Hybrinetics, Inc., prays for an order granting
an enlargement of time for the purposes coordinating and presenting Mr. Rick Rosa for his
deposition or any other relief this Honorable Court deems equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted, this 10" day of October 2006
Hybrinetics, Incorporated,
By: /s/ Kamilah A. Parker

Mr. Charles W. Planek

Ms. Kamilah A. Parker
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
120 N. LaSalle Street, 26" Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
312.704.0550
353918.1
The undersigned certifies that on October 10, 2006 the forgoing Agreed Motion for
Enlargement of Time was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system
which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
353918.1
Case: ;:06-cv-01720 Document #: 52-2 Filed: 10/10/06 Page 1 of 3 PagelD #:211
i
‘Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 1 A Filed 03/29/2006 Page 4 of 9
COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF T,
COUNTY DEPART MEN LAW DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIGME, ;
PleintifF, )
3 NO.
v.
) 20061000289
COMPANY, L.L.C. ;
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
\ 5 2
by and w
Now comes the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI,
L At ell times releva ntthe nmndmgfl-mmz,w%a)foéi&’

hereto,
doing business in the States of Tlinois
limited liability corporation, authorized to do and

M], was and is
2, At all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORTU
a resident of Cook County, Tllinols.

r real
of certain
3. Atall times relevant hereto, THE RITZ was the owne
on which teal estate THE
estate Tocated 1,300 "Town Center Drive, Dearborn, Michigan,
sommonly known as The
RITZ did operate, maintain and control 2 ctrtain publle hotel,
Ritz-Cariton Dearborn.
on the
4, On Janusty 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, was lawfully
of public accommodation,
premises as aforesaid a5 2 paying guest of said hote! and place
#nd s such, was o business invites of Defendant.
EXHIBIT
i
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 1 Filed 03/29/2006 Page

5 of @
Defendant to
s At all times hereinafter mentioned, it was the duty of the
exercise ordinary care in the ownership, maintenance and control of their real and
maintained
personal property to Se¢ that thely premises, and the personal property
thereon, were in reasonsbly safe condition for the use of business invitees an the
propexty, including the Plaintiff herein,
6. Atell times heveinafier mentioned, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, was in

the exereise of ordinary care for his own safety.
7 At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant provided certain olectrical
fixtores In its roorns, includln g Jocated next to the bed behind the nightstand.
a fixture
8, On the date as aforesaid, the Plaintff did reach behind the nightstand to
remove the plug from the outlet so that he could use the eleotrical outlst for another
pusposa.
9. Upon grasping m$ plug, the Plaintlf f with a shack of electriclty,
was jolted
which was sufficient ly to cau
severe himse
to fall backto the floor.
10. The plug in the hotel room a the time and place aforessid had bare wires
and was not properly insulated, thus directly causing the Plaintlff to suffer the electrleal
shock and become Injured.

11, Theelectrical shock suffered by the Plalntiff as eforesaid was direetly and
proximately caused by one or more of the foregoing careless and negligent acts of the
() Failure to malntain jts premises in a reasonably safe condition;
(b} Failure to puaintain s electrical fixtures in a ropsonably safe

condition;
Case: 1:06-Cv-
06-cv-01720 Document #: 52-2 Filed:
i 10/10/06 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #:213
—— (
Qo 01720 142 Filed 04/13/2006
Document— Pag e 3of3
. . Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 1 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 6 of .9
public area
d on the plug to remain in.a or
"
() Allowingbere wires expose kne w

tees, although Defendant
utilized by its business invi
wn of the dan ger thereby created;
should have kno
there wes & defective plug end
@ Failue to wam the Plaintiff that
fixture in his roonm;
d wires on the
he)nm:mmdbyms expose
() Fafl:lrcroclimlmta\ ressid,
electrical cord in the room es afo
or mare of the foregoing, the
12 As o dire ct and proximate result of one
-
ut his body, both
n M. Tor ium i, suff ered diverse injuries to and abo
Plaintiff, Dea
re, which heve caused and will
2 permenent and fasting natu
impernally and externally, of
ch the Pleintiff has been
20d mind, and as a result of whi
continue to cause pain in body
ing to bis usunl duties and
will con tin ue to bie furt her prevented and limited ip ettend
and
ww ddh;ve
ir
andshas losts Jose gwupinwhldahtofiuwi
and,will in the futare
aff
damage.
made and sequired; all to Plaintiff's
judgment agelost
DEAN M. TORIUM, preys for
‘WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff;
forelgn limited
N HOTEL COMPANY, LLC., @
Defendant, THE RITZ CARLTO
ch js wit jurii
the h tional power of this Coust
sdicn
liability corporation in an AMOVST whi
lars (§50,000.00),
and in excess of FIRy Thousand Dol
awerd as proven by the evidenee,
BLfor

Bemard Roceanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
Chicago, Ilinois 60606
(312) 422-9998
Firm No. 36564
—
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document2 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 1 of é

06CV1720 L COVER SHEET M
JUDGE GUZMAN aeith e o spplemen he é;lngrdn(ll' servic of leadings o cthr paprs s e
MAG. DENLOW s ?[ fi
& ol
or irt for the:
bepupsaesiinkising
08e of the ciw! et
e et.
e
|
~ ‘(@) PLATINTIFFS . v FENDANTS 4

DEANM. TORIUMI AR 3 9 2006 THE RITZ-CARLTON
HOTEL COMPANY. LLC.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plainift _Cook ! E!L 3

Odlo
ngunly of Residance of First Listed Defendant
(RXCEPT IN ULS. PLAINTIFF CASFS) " (IN US. PLAINTIEE CAS] ONLY)
"IN LAND CONDEMNATION CAS| SE THE LOCAHION OF THE
LAND INVOLVED
(£) Attomey's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (I Known)
Bernard Rocuanova, Duley & Mohan, P.C. Robert M. Burke/Johnson & Bell, Lid,
150 Notth Wacker Drive, Suite 1550 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, [Hinois 60606 Chicago, Minois 60603
1. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Phace an "X in One Bus Only) I CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES ¥isce an X" inGne Box for Plointif
(For Diversity Cases Only) 1d Onc B for Defendan)
PTE F DEF
Ot us. Governmem [J3 Federat Question Citizen of This Sule (] ) fil Incorporated or Prinvipul Place rfi + ]t
Plaintift. (U5, Govemment Not a Party) of Busincss In This Statc
[z us. Goveramen W]+ Diversivy Ciionor e Sute (]2 [Jo tnorporned and vinciat v [] 5 [10] 5
Defendanc (Indicate Citizenship of Parties of Business [n Another Srte
n ltem 111y
Gz orSubjsctofa []3 [Ja ForeignNation s Qs
Forcim Country
(Place an “X" in Onc Box Only)
TORTS FORFEITURI/PENALTY] BANKRUFICY OTHER STATUTES
110 tosurance: PERSONAL INJURY PERSONALINIGRY | (610 Agriculums [ha2 appeat28 Usc1sk (a0 S Respportioanne
120 Murune: 310 Avplane: [J362 Personat Igury-- - 20 Ol Food& Drug 3410 Anitrust
130 Miler Act 0413 Airplans Produss Mot Milpractive (25 Drug Related Scicurc | []423 Withdrmweal 430 Banks and Banking.
140 Negouble Instrument Lialnlity 305 Pecsonal injury-~ of Propeny21 USC 831 2USC 18T 450 Commerve 1CC Ruteserg:
150 Revovery
of Ovorpayment | {1320 Assati, Libel & Vroduce Lisbility J630 Liguar Laws — J460 Deporiation
% Eolowcement
of Jugment St 068 Astoson Parsort 640 R.R. & Truck PROPERTY RIGHTS _ |17 kackcrcwr Intucncd il
115 Metians Act 3930 Federal timplayers™ Injury Prduct J650 Aishne Rews. %20 Conyin Cunupl Oganivations
2132 Revoveyof Letbuhed Lisbil Lisbiliry 660 Ocxupationsi et 480 Consumer Crodie
Student Lowns (excl. vet,y | (1340 Marine PEKSONAL PROPERTY SafetyHeulih Do paen 490 CablerSateling TV
0133 Recovery of Ovorpayment | []345 Masine Froduout 170 Othes Frand o oher w0 Tredema K10Selectrve Serviie
AF Veleray's Nenolits Lty 371 Touth in |andiry; — 450 SccuntyComdiytach
160 Sk holders’ St Em» Motor Vehicle IR0 Onber Personsl TABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 875 Custonr Challongs
190 Other Comenct 453 Moo Vi Piopaity Dt e 12USC 331
195 Contrat Product Liabily Prodver Lnbiliy (65 poperty Damage | 37 i abor Sl Em :!‘]'Q;‘L’jn’;“!m] 3001 Agsculnmst A
9196 b [ —— ot bty || g et | s o sy |92 bt Suslzain
REALPROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS | FRISONKR PEVITIONS] O MMKM"& mfi’fi.’{;g{:”)“" [§91 Lty Allation Act
210 Land Condenmation 441 Voting D510 Motions to Vasate: & Disclosure Adt eos redomof nfomision A
220 Forecksure. Jaa2 Femplaymant Sentenee 740 Raitny
Y abor Act FEDERAL TAX SLIITS ‘“‘"l':fl”‘." o Undor
230 Remt Lense & e | (7443 Housiny lghes Compus: ” b
240 fonsfo Lusd Acwonuodations | (1530 Giacest L2775 Oter Labor Linigaion D"""“‘“‘I.‘”:"""""' 50 ot Az
i Dt
245 Tort Product Linbiliry 444 Welfare 1535 Death Pevalry ) or Pofencsnl) (i ettty o
290 All Orher Real Property 445 ADA ~-Employmont| [[]540 Mandumus
& Other | 3791 Empl. Ret Jne. [Js71 ks —rtid pany 890 Othor Satory Actions
[J46 ADA --tnher st <l Righs Sevurity Act 26 USC 7609
(40 Othor Cisil Righte | (535 Prison Condition
V. ORIGIN PLACE AN“X”IN
_ (PLACE AN R ONE BOX ONLY) Fonsrat o Jopelis i -
1 Original 2 Romaved fiom 3 Remanded from O4 Reingitedor o snother distriet [716 Multidistriec []7 Mugnsinuie
= mfi’wmug D Stats Court O Appaliate Court Reopened o (pesily) Litigation Judgment
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (tinter 1:.5. Civil Statutc under which you sre filing and write | VIT, PREVIOUS BANKRUPTCY MATTERS (For naturo of
a brief statement of cause.) :;:;22 and 423, enter the ?Ilc‘vlullnbflga by judge for any us:v.'u\lu;\m
. . rupicy witier perviously adjudicated by i judge of this Cowrt. Use a
Title 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332 and 1441 separite allachment if necessary)
ViTI, REQUESTED IN TICITCK 1T TS 18 A CLASS ACTION — BEMANDF THFCR VES only 1 demandza i complam
COMPLAINT: UNDLR ERC.P 23 JURY DEMAND: e Ny,
IX. This case [Jis not a refiling of a previously
Dis u retliing of cuse number + previowsty dismissed by Judge

" March fi 2006 SIGRATORT OF 'I(Akm:yer’/
EXHIBIT
o

FOR THE Northern District of lllinois — CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5
Eastern Division
Dean M Toriumi
Plaintiff,
V. Case No.: 1:06—cv—01720
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, July 18, 2006:
MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman :MOTION by Defendant The

Ritz—Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. for leave to file Third Party Complaint for
Contribution [32] is granted, Motion hearing held on 7/18/2006 regarding motion for
leave to file[32]. Status hearing set for 8/8/2006 at 09:30 AM.Mailed notice(cjg, )
EXHIBIT
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document47. Filed 08/16/2006 Page 1 of 2

In the Matter of:
Case Number:
06C1720
SIGNATURE

FIRM

STREET ADDESS
CITY/STATE/ZIP
6269896 312-704-0550
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES ® NoO
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES O NO &
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES O NO
IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES & NoO
RETAINED COUNSEL 0 APPOINTED COUNSEL [0
EXHiBIT
]
3
342891.1 ¢
to the following:
Bemard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
342891.1
CM/BCEETYB6Vey
257709 distriehCous2Norhent Himotyos Page 3 of 18 PagelD #:Mige 1 of 1
Notices
1:06-cv-01720 Toriumi v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was received from Ackerman, Lisa Handler entered on 8/16/2006 at 10:48
AM CDT and filed on 8/16/2006
Case Name: Toriumi v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
Case Number: 1:06-cv-1720
Filer: Hybrinetics, Inc.
Document Number: 47
Docket Text:
ATTORNEY Appearance for Third Party Defendant Hybrinetics, Inc. by Lisa Handler Ackerman
(Ackerman, Lisa)
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document

Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=8/16/2006] [FileNumber=2689214-0
1[4c7868143a40e9df82ab12bc49aaadcaad90bd4dTeeeef093d078ad914a3c043b44
527¢0cb12a40f4292b9322b1854861¢11d752271d0a7792dc96e816d88503]]
1:06-cv-1720 Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Lisa Handler Ackerman lisa.ackerman@wilsonelser.com
Blake Ashton Barron barron@daleymohan.com
Robert Michael Burke burker@jbltd.com
Timothy R. Couture couturet@jbltd.com
Eydie Rachel Glassman glassmane@jbltd.com
Mary Louise Kandyba mlkandyba@daleymohan.com
Bernard Roccanova rocc@daleymohan.com
1:06-cv-1720 Notice will be delivered by other means to:
https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl 2435923596711302 8/16/2006

RECE!I'ED
®

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS AUG 16 2006
In the Matter of: BICHAEL v/,
CLERK, U.S. D5 or
Case Number:
06C1720.
SIGNATURE
KamilahA. Parker /L/W a %

FIRM
STREET ADDESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP
6279348 312-704-0550
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES ® NoO
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES O NO K
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES O NO &
IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES No O
RETAINED COUNSEL OO0 APPOINTED COUNSEL O
342888.1
The undersigned, a non-attorney, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Third
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
postage prepaid, on or before 5:00 p.m. on this 16™ day of August, 2006.
) U
This 16™ day of August, 2006.
OFFICIAL SEAL
JANETTE GILLESPIE
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES05/08108
Notary Public
342888.1

In the Matter of:
Case Number:
06C1720
SIGNATURE
Charles W. Planck W %{
FIRM
STREET ADDESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP
6181259 312-704-0550
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE?
YES No O
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE?
YES O NO &
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES O NO
IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES H NoO
342890.1
The undersigned, a non-attorney, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Third
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
postage prepaid, on or before 5:00 p.m. on this 16" day of August, 2006.
Y
2O
U/
This 16" day of August, 2006.
Qi Wiihai ’
Notary Public
R
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 05/08/08
342890.1

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUM], )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No.: 06 C 1720
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
vs.
)
ANSWER TO THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT FOR CONTRIBUTION
attorneys, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, and for its Answer
to the Third-Party Complaint for Contribution states as follows:
JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, initiated the above captioned lawsuit by filing an action in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Law Division, on or about January 10, 2006.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph one.
2. The action was removed to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 USC § 1441,
et. seq.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph two.
342622.1
3. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC is a limited liability
company formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business
located in Bethesda, Maryland. Its members are citizens of the States of Maryland, Delaware
and Virginia.
contained within paragraph three.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph four.
5. Federal jurisdiction is properly premised upon the diversity of citizenship of the parties.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph five.
6. Venue is proper in this judicial district in that the Defendant is subject to personal
jurisdiction in this district.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant admits the allegations contained within paragraph six.
Count I
Contribution-Negligence]
contained within paragraph seven.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant manufactures and sells certain voltage converters. The
Third-Party Defendant denies all remaining allegations contained within paragraph eight.
342622.1
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant did not sell certain voltage converters to the Ritz-
Carlton in Dearborn, Michigan. Answering further the Third-Party Defendant denies the
remaining allegations contained within paragraph nine.
a. designed, manufactured and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe for its intended use
in that it broke or otherwise came apart in such a fashion as to
present a risk of electrical shock;
b. designed, manufactured and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe in that it failed to
contain appropriate warnings;
c. designed, manufactured and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe for its intended and
342622.1

Answer: The Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph eleven,
including subparts a-d.
and damages.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph twelve.
13. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff denies any liability to the Plaintiff, however, if the
Hybrinetics, Inc.
thirteen.
fourteen.
342622.1
WHEREFORE, the Third-Party Defendant, HYBRINETICS INC., prays that the Third
appropriate.
Count II
[Contribution-Negligence!
Answer: Upon information and belief, the Third Party Defendant admits the allegations
contained within paragraph fifteen.
16. Onand prior to the date of the occurrence, Hybrinetics, Inc. designed, manufactured, sold
Answer: The Third Party Defendant manufactures and sells certain voltage converters.
Answering further the Third Party Defendant denies all remaining allegations contained within
paragraph sixteen.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant did not sell certain voltage converters to the Ritz-Carlton
in Dearborn, Michigan. Answering further the Third-Party Defendant denies the remaining
allegations contained within paragraph seventeen.
342622.1
a. Carelessly and negligently, designed, manufactured and

not reasonably safe for its intended use in that it broke
or otherwise came apart in such a fashion as to present
arisk of electrical shock;
b. carelessly and negligently designed, manufactured and

not reasonably safe in that it failed to contain appropriate
warnings;
c. carelessly and negligently designed, manufactured and

not reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable use
in that it failed to operate in a safe manner;

nineteen, including sub-parts a - d.
342622.1
and damages.
Answer: The Third-Party Defendant denies the allegations contained within paragraph twenty.
21. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff denies any liability to the Plaintiff, however, if the
Hybrinetics, Inc.
one.
two.
'WHEREFORE, the Third-Party Defendant, HYBRINETICS INC., prays that the Third
appropriate.
342622.1
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Affirmative Defenses to the Third-Party Complaint for Contribution states as follows:
for Contribution are true, which this Third-Party Defendant denies, Plaintiff’s contributory
negligence reduces any recover Plaintiff may receive in this case as a result of his conduct in one
or more of the following acts and/or omissions:
for Contribution are true, which this Defendant denies, Plaintiff’s contributory negligence is
greater than 50 percent and thus Plaintiff is barred from any recover in this case as a result of his
conduct in one or more of the following acts and/or omissions:
3. That if this Honorable Court finds that the State of Michigan substantive law applies in
this case, then the Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Third Party Complaint for Contribution is
barred as Michigan law does not allow contribution actions. See M.C.L. § 600.2956.
342622.1
appropriate.
By:__/s/ Lisa Handler Ackerman

Charles W. Planek
Kamilah A. Parker
‘WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ
26" Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
312.704.0550
342622.1
The undersigned certifies that on August 16, 2006, this document was electronicaily filed
to the following:
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
10
342622.1
CM/EGEQ:IVB6\er-8
5720 . BdRistish Cousz Northeth 1ibiis06 Page 18 of 18 PagelD #P&g 1 of 1
Answers to Complaints
1:06-cv-01720 Toriumi v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was received from Ackerman, Lisa Handler entered on 8/16/2006 at 10:45
AM CDT and filed on 8/16/2006
Case Name: Toriumi v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.
Case Number: 1:06-cv-1720
Filer: Hybrinetics, Inc.
Document Number: 46
Docket Text:
Third Party Def4endant's ANSWER to Third Party Complaint by Hybrinetics, Inc.(Ackerman, Lisa)
The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
Document description:Main Document

Original filename:n/a
Electronic document Stamp:
[STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1040059490 [Date=8/16/2006] [FileNumber=2689183-0
1 [2cb0690c79dbd8¢70f1fd3b2933815b3fbe2ae3f42d009c6al f8e62eb3elc7blef
11293726fe6fb7313bc68e77c9e5c462846623af58897¢2071b806b5859al1]]
1:06-cv-1720 Notice will be electronically mailed to:
Lisa Handler Ackerman lisa.ackerman@wilsonelser.com
Blake Ashton Barron barron@daleymohan.com
Robert Michael Burke burker@jbltd.com
Timothy R. Couture ~ couturet@jbltd.com
Eydie Rachel Glassman glassmane@jbltd.com
Mary Louise Kandyba mlkandyba@daleymohan.com
Bernard Roccanova rocc@daleymohan.com
1:06-cv-1720 Notice will be delivered by other means to:
https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?110174761970232 8/16/2006
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 32-2 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 1 of 6

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.: 06 C 1720
v. )
)
Defendant. )
)
COMPANY, L.L.C., ;
Third Party Plaintiff, )
)
-vs- )
)
)
EXHIBIT
>
tabbies®
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 32-2 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 2 of 6 I
LL.C, is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of
citizenship of the parties. i
COUNT 1

!
he received an electrical shock whike staying at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in ii
|
Dearborn, Michigan. |
converter adapters,
subject hotel.
foreseeable use.
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, in the alternative to those denials,
Hybrinetics, Inc.:


(©) Designed, manufactured, and distributed a plug


13. Defendant/Thiid Party Plaintiff denies any liability to the Plaintiff;

14. In the alternative to the denials contained in this Defendant’s \

Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, all in accordance with the Hlinois Contribution

suit.
COUNT IT
{CONTRIBUTION ~ NEGLIGENCE)
Dearborn, Michigan.
converter.
subject hotel.
involved in this litigation.
Plaintiff's injuries and damages in one or more or all of the following respects,
Hybrinetics. Inc.:

(b} Carelessly and negligently designed, manufactured and

warnings;
() Carelessly and negligently, Designed, manufactured, and



which proximately caused or contributed to cause the Plaintiff's injuries and
Tortfeasor’s Act.

Inc.’s conduct proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries and damages plus costs of
suit,

Company, Inc.
ROBERT M. BURKE
Telephone: (312) 372-0770
Attorney No. 06347
€ase: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 10/10/06 Page 1 of 4 PagelD #:185

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiffs,
Case No.: 06 C 1720
vs-
Judge Ronald Guzman
Defendant.
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
TO: See attached Service List
DEPONENT: RICK ROSA, President of Hybrinetics, Inc.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the undersigned will take the
deposition of the above-named deponent before a Notary Public or any other duly
authorized officer in the City of Chicago on:
DATE: October 16, 2006 TIME: 2:00 p.m.
PLACE: Johnson & Bell, Ltd. SUITE: 2700

YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED pursuant to the Code of Civil

Procedure and the Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois that you are by this
Notice required to have present on the date, time and placed stated, the said
deponent for oral examination for the purpose of discovery.
See attached Rider

Robert M. Burke
Suite 2700
(312) 372-0770
EXHIBIT
tabbles”
R
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
COUNTY OF COOK )
LISA MORRISON, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states
that she served a copy of the above and foregoing NOTICE OF DEPOSITION, to all
attorneys of record, by mailing a copy of same to the above referenced parties this
29t day of September, 2006.
(o i
Undér penaities/as provided by law
Sec. 1-109, 1 certify that the
statements set forth herein are true
and correct.

33 West. Monroe, Suite 2700
(312) 372-0770
Firm 1.D. No. 06347
RIDER
At the time and place aforesaid, the deponent is hereby directed to produce the
following documents:
1. Any and all brochures, drawings, diagrams, schematics, or other

documents of any kind or nature which describe or depict the
voltage converter previously attached to Defendant’s
interrogatories as exhibit A.
Any and all records indicating when the energy converter/plug,

attached to Defendant’s interrogatories as Exhibit A, was first
manufactured, designed, and/or shipped.
Any and all instruction booklets, manuals, pamphlets, or other

w
materials enclosed with the subject “energy converter” or plug

attached to Defendant’s interrogatories as Exhibit “A”, when it was
shipped to its original user or vendor
LCase: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 52-7 Filed: 10/10/06 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #:188
SERVICE LIST
Plaintiff’s Attorney:
Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
Telephone: (312) 422-9999;
Counsel for Hybrinetics:

Kamilah A. Parker
Charles W. Planek
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP
120 North LaSalle Street
Suite 2600
Telephone: (312) 704-0550

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) Case No.: 06 C 1720
)
)
Defendant. ) Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow
)
)
vs. )
)
)
NOTICE OF MOTION
TO:
Bernard Roccanova Robert M. Burke
Daley & Mohan Johnson & Bell, Ltd.
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1550 33 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606 Chicago, IL 60603
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 17 Day of October, 2006 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as counsel may be heard, Third-Party Defendant Hybrinetics, Inc., shall appear before the
Honorable Ronald Guzman or any Judge sitting in his place or stead in Room 1219 of the United
States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 S. Dearborn Street,
Chicago, Illinois, and shall then and there present its Agreed Motion for an Enlargement of Time,
a copy of which is attached and hereby served upon you.
Hybrinetics, Incorporated,
By: /s/ Kamilah A. Parker

Mr. Charles W. Planek
Ms. Kamilah A. Parker
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
120 N. LaSalle Street, 26™ Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 704-0550
354169.1
The undersigned certifies that on October 10, 2006 the foregoing Notice of Motion was
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of such filing to the following:
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
354169.1

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
NSNS
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 06 C 1720

COMPANY, L.L.C., Magistrate Denlow
NN
Defendant.
NN
NS
COMPANY, L.L.C.,
NN
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
NN
HYBRINETICS, INC.,
NN
Third-Party Defendant.
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Cross-Plaintiff,
v.
HYBRINETICS, INC.,
Cross-Defendant.
PLAINTIFE’S CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST HYBRINETICS, INC.
Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, by his attorneys, Bernard Roccanova and Daley
& Mohan, P.C., for his Cross-Claim against Third-Party Defendant, HYBRINETICS,
INC., (“Hybrinetics™), states as follows:

CROSS-CLAIM
1. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, HYBRINETICS, was a
corporation authorized to do and doing business in California and other states, including
the State of Illinois.
aresident of Cook County, Illinois.
3. On January 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, was lawfully on
the premises of The Ritz-Carlton Dearborn in Dearborn, Michigan as a paying guest of
said hotel and place of public accommodation, and as such, was a business invitee of
Defendant, THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C.
4. On and prior to the date of the occurrence, Defendant, HY BRINETICS,
designed, manufactured, sold, and distributed certain plug adapter/voltage converter
adapters.
5. Prior to the date of the occurrence, Defendant, HYBRINETICS, sold a
particular plug adapter/voltage converter adapter which became broken and was left in an
outlet at the aforesaid Ritz-Carlton Dearborn.
6. Defendant, HYBRINETICS, owed a duty to design, manufacture, and
distribute a plug adapter which was reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable use.
7. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI,
8. On the date aforesaid, the Plaintiff did suffer an injury resulting from an
electrical shock he received while attempting to remove a plug adapter/voltage converter
designed, manufactured, and distributed by Defendant, HYBRINETICS.

proximately caused by one or more of the following careless and negligent acts of the
Defendant, HYBRINETICS, in violation of its duty as aforesaid:
(@) Designed, manufactured, and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe for its intended use in that
it broke or otherwise came apart in such a fashion as to present a
risk of electrical shock;
®) Designed, manufactured, and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe in that it failed to contain
appropriate warnings;
© Designed, manufactured, and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe for its intended use and
(@ Was otherwise guilty of designing, manufacturing, and distributing

a plug adapter/voltage converter which was not reasonably safe for
its intended and foreseeable use.
10. Asadirect and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid acts
and/or omissions of Defendant, HYBRINETICS, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI,
suffered diverse injuries to and about his body, both internally and externally, of a
permanent and lasting nature, which have caused and will continue to cause pain in body
and mind, and as a result of which the Plaintiff has been and will continue to be further
prevented and limited in attending to his usual duties and affairs, and has lost and will in
the future lose great gain which he otherwise would have made and acquired, all to
Plaintiff’s damage.
‘WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, prays for judgment against
Defendant, HYBRINETICS, INC., a domestic corporation, in an amount as proven by the
evidence.
s/Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
(312) 422-9999
I, Bernard Roccanova, an attorney, hereby certify that on the 12th day of October,
2006, I caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Cross-Claim to be served electronically on the
attorneys of record listed below using the ECF system:
Robert M. Burke
33 West Monroe
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
Lisa H. Ackerman
26" floor
Chicago, IL 60602
s/Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova

Eastern Division
Dean M Toriumi
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:06—cv—01720
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, October 16, 2006:
MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman :Motion for extension of time for
the deposition of Rick Rosa [52] is granted, Motions terminated: MOTION by Third Party
Defendant Hybrinetics, Inc. for extension of time Agreed Motion for an Enlargement of
Time[52]. Mailed notice(cjg, )

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 06 C 1720
)
COMPANY,LLC., ) Magistrate Denlow
)
Defendant. )
)
COMPANY,LLC., )
)
)
v.
)
PLAINTIFE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT.

HYBRINETICS, INC., AS A DIRECT DEFENDANT
Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMLI, by his attorneys, Bernard Roccanova and Daley
& Mohan, P.C., pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves this
Court for leave to add Third Party Defendant, HYBRINETICS, INC. (“Hybrinetics”), as
a direct defendant, and for reasons, states:
1. On January 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, a plastic and
reconstructive surgeon, received a severe shock to his right hand while a guest at the
Ritz-Carlton Hotel (“Ritz”) in Dearborn, Michigan.
2. On that date, the Plaintiff was attempting to remove what he believed to be a
plug from an outlet so that he could plug in his laptop computer.

3. Unknown to the Plaintiff, the object which he grasped was not a plug, but
rather the remnant of a broken plug adapter/voltage converter.
4. From the day of the incident, the broken plug adapter/voltage converter was in
the possession of the Ritz and the Plaintiff was unaware of the identity of the
manufacturer of the device which caused his injury.
5. On or about July 18, 2006, Ritz filed its Third Party Complaint for
Contribution against Hybrinetics, the manufacturer of the plug adapter/voltage converter.
On August 16, 2006, Hybrinetics filed its Answer to that Complaint.
6. As the Plaintiff believes that Hybrinetics shares responsibility with Ritz for his
injuries, and as Michigan law, which may be held to apply to this case, does not permit
contribution, the Plaintiff moves to add Hybrinetics as a direct defendant.
7. Pursuant to Section 600.5805 of the Michigan Revised Judicature Act of 1961,
the Michigan statute of limitations for personal injury is three years and will not run in
this case until January 14, 2007.
8. As Hybrinetics is presently a defendant in this case, granting this motion will
not affect the existing discovery schedule.
9. A copy of Plaintiff’s proposed Cross-Claim is attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit A.
Wherefore, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, moves this Court for leave to file
his Cross-Claim against HYBRINETICS, INC., as a direct defendant.
s/Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
Daniel J. Mohan
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Chicago, IL 60606
312/422-9999
2006, I caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Add Third Party
Defendant, Hybrinetics, Inc., as a Direct Defendant to be electronically served on the
Robert M. Burke
33 West Monroe
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
Lisa H. Ackerman
26" floor
Chicago, IL 60602
s/Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
NSNS
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 06 C 1720

COMPANY, L.L.C., Magistrate Denlow
NN
Defendant.
NN
NS
COMPANY, L.L.C.,
NN
v.
NN
HYBRINETICS, INC.,
NN
Third-Party Defendant.
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Cross-Plaintiff,
v.
HYBRINETICS, INC.,
Cross-Defendant.
PLAINTIFE’S CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST HYBRINETICS, INC.
Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, by his attorneys, Bernard Roccanova and Daley
& Mohan, P.C., for his Cross-Claim against Third-Party Defendant, HYBRINETICS,
INC., (“Hybrinetics™), states as follows:

CROSS-CLAIM
1. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, HYBRINETICS, was a
corporation authorized to do and doing business in California and other states, including
the State of Illinois.
aresident of Cook County, Illinois.
3. On January 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, was lawfully on
the premises of The Ritz-Carlton Dearborn in Dearborn, Michigan as a paying guest of
said hotel and place of public accommodation, and as such, was a business invitee of
Defendant, THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C.
4. On and prior to the date of the occurrence, Defendant, HY BRINETICS,
designed, manufactured, sold, and distributed certain plug adapter/voltage converter
adapters.
5. Prior to the date of the occurrence, Defendant, HYBRINETICS, sold a
particular plug adapter/voltage converter adapter which became broken and was left in an
outlet at the aforesaid Ritz-Carlton Dearborn.
6. Defendant, HYBRINETICS, owed a duty to design, manufacture, and
distribute a plug adapter which was reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable use.
7. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI,
8. On the date aforesaid, the Plaintiff did suffer an injury resulting from an
electrical shock he received while attempting to remove a plug adapter/voltage converter
designed, manufactured, and distributed by Defendant, HYBRINETICS.

proximately caused by one or more of the following careless and negligent acts of the
Defendant, HYBRINETICS, in violation of its duty as aforesaid:
(@) Designed, manufactured, and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe for its intended use in that
it broke or otherwise came apart in such a fashion as to present a
risk of electrical shock;
®) Designed, manufactured, and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe in that it failed to contain
appropriate warnings;
© Designed, manufactured, and distributed a plug adapter/voltage

converter which was not reasonably safe for its intended use and
(@ Was otherwise guilty of designing, manufacturing, and distributing

a plug adapter/voltage converter which was not reasonably safe for
its intended and foreseeable use.
10. Asadirect and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid acts
and/or omissions of Defendant, HYBRINETICS, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI,
suffered diverse injuries to and about his body, both internally and externally, of a
permanent and lasting nature, which have caused and will continue to cause pain in body
and mind, and as a result of which the Plaintiff has been and will continue to be further
prevented and limited in attending to his usual duties and affairs, and has lost and will in
the future lose great gain which he otherwise would have made and acquired, all to
Plaintiff’s damage.
‘WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, prays for judgment against
Defendant, HYBRINETICS, INC., a domestic corporation, in an amount as proven by the
evidence.
s/Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
(312) 422-9999
2006, I caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Cross-Claim to be served electronically on the
Robert M. Burke
33 West Monroe
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
Lisa H. Ackerman
26" floor
Chicago, IL 60602
s/Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Case No. 06 C 1720
)
COMPANY,LLC., ) Magistrate Denlow
)
Defendant. )
)
COMPANY,LLC., )
)
v. )
)
)
NOTICE OF MOTION
To: Robert M. Burke Lisa H. Ackerman

Johnson & Bell, Ltd. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman
33 West Monroe, Suite 2700 & Dicker, LLP
Chicago, IL 60603 120 North LaSalle Street, 26™ floor
Chicago, IL 60602
On October 25, 2006 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard,
1 shall appear before the honorable Judge Ronald A. Guzman, or any Judge sitting in his
stead, in courtroom 1219 at 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois and then and
there present PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ADD THIRD PARTY
DEFENDANT, HYBRINETICS, INC., AS A DIRECT DEFENDANT, a copy of
which is attached hereto.
s/Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Chicago, IL 60606
312/422-9999
I, Bernard Roccanova, an attorney, hereby certify that on the 19 day of October,
2006, I caused the foregoing Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion for Leave to Add Third
Party Defendant, Hybrinetics, Inc., as a Direct Defendant to be electronically served
on the attorneys of record listed below by using the ECF system:
Robert M. Burke
33 West Monroe
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
Lisa H. Ackerman
26" floor
Chicago, IL 60602
s/Bernard Roccanova
Bernard Roccanova

In the Matter of:
Dean M. Toriumiv. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, et al.
Case Number:
06C1720,
SIGNATURE
/s/ Eric J. Ryan

FIRM
STREET ADDESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

1D NUMBER TELEPHONE NUMBER
6275824 312-704-0550
ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES ® NonO
ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES O NO X
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES O NO &
IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YESO NOM
RETAINED COUNSEL 0 APPOINTED COUNSEL O
357200.1
The undersigned certifies that on October 24, 2006, this document was electronically
Bernard Roccanova
DALEY & MOHAN, P.C.
Robert M. Burke
/s/ Eric J. Ryan
357200.1

Eastern Division
Dean M Toriumi
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:06—cv—01720
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, October 25, 2006:
MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman :Status hearing held on

10/25/2006. Simultaneous briefs on the issue of which state law applies are to be filed on
or before 11/15/06. Ruling to be by mail. Mailed notice(cjg, )
¥
ovterrorm sy, C8S€! 1:06-CV-01720 Document #: 59 Filed: 10/27/06 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:238
N egisace Todge
f Assigned
Ronald A. Guzman nen aignet udge
ttl1
CASE NUMBER 06 C 1720 DATE 1027/2006

CASE DEAN M. TORTUMI vs. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LL.C.
TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Court’s order of 10/25/06 setting a briefing schedule on the issue of which state law applies is vacated. Enter
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The defendant’s motion to transfer venue [Doc. No. 14] is granted. The
Clerk of the Court is ordered to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan. This case is terminated.
Any pending motions of schedules are stricken as moot.
Docketing to mail notices.

M [ For further detail see separate order(s).)
Courtroom Deputy cG
Tnitials:
L.L.C. Pagelof 1
06C1720 DEAN M. TORIUMI vs. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT «

EASTERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
e N
Plaintiff,
e
06 C 1720
e
v.
Judge Ronald A. Guzmén
e
COMPANY, L.L.C,,
Defendant.
e
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

injured
Dean Toriumi has sued the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. alleging that he was
moved pursuant
by an electrical shock he sustained while staying in one of its hotels. Defendant has
Court for the Eastern
to 28 U.S.C. § (“section”) 1404(a) to transfer this case to the U.S. District
District of Michigan. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
Discussion
interest
Section 1404(a) states, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the
might have been
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district where it
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Transfer is appropriate under this section when: “(1) venue is
brought.”
district; and
proper in the transferor district; (2) venue and jurisdiction are proper in the transferee
the interest
(3) the transfer will foster the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote
The
of justice.”” Amoco Qil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 958, 959 (N.D. Iil. 2000).
of demonstrating that “the transferee forum is clearly more

moving party has the burden
convenient.” Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219-20 (7th Cir. 1986).
The parties agree that jurisdiction and venue are proper both here and in the Eastern District
of Michigan. Thus, we will address only the last factor, the convenience of the parties and the
public and
witnesses and the interests of justice. To evaluate this factor, we must examine various
private interests. Saunders v. Franklin, 25 F. Supp. 2d 855, 857 (N.D. IIl. 1998). The private
relative
interests include: “(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the
convenience to
ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the witnesses; and (5) the
the parties of litigating in the respective forums.” Hanley v. Omarc, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 2d 770, 774
to trial;
(N.D. I1L. 1998). The public interests include: “(1) the speed at which the case will proceed
sies in
(2) the court’s familiarity with the applicable law; (3) the desirability of resolving controver
their locale; and (4) the relation of the community to the occurrence at issue.” Id at 777.
PlaintifP’s Forum Choice & Situs of Material Events

if plaintiff
Generally, plaintiff’s choice of forum is given significant weight, especially
resides there. Id. at 774-75. If, however, the chosen forum has little connection to the cause of
action, plaintiff’s choice is given less deference. Id. at 775.

n to
Such is the case here. Plaintiff chose to sue in Illinois, but the state has little connectio
the suit. Plaintiff was injured in defendant’s Michigan hotel, defendant’s negligence, if any,
is the situs of
occurred in Michigan, and the parties relationship is centered there. Thus, Michigan
material events. Cf Miller v. Long-Airdox Co., 914 F.2d 976, 978 (7th Cir. 1990) (stating, in the
place where
choice-of-law context, that court considers “the place where the injury occurred; the
tion,
the conduct causing the injury occurred; the parties’” domiciles, residences, places of incorpora
and places of business; and the place where the parties’ relationship, if any, is centered” to determine
which state has the most significant relationship to a tort case). Because the situs of material events
is Michigan, plaintiff’s forum choice receives much less deference. Taken together, these two
factors militate against transfer, but only slightly.
Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
Defendant argues that this case should be moved to Michigan because the hotel, the electrical
in
plug that allegedly caused plaintiff's injury, and its records pertaining to the incident are
Michigan. Plaintiff says the case should stay in Illinois because the plug can easily be shipped here,
are
a site visit to the hotel will be unnecessary, and the records pertaining to his medical treatment
here.
The location of the parties’ records matters little. Neither party contends that the relevant
documents are too voluminous to be feasibly shipped to another jurisdiction. As a result, the fact
the
that plaintiff’s records are in Illinois and defendant’s records are in Michigan has no impact on
analysis. See Stanley v. Marion, No. 04 C 514, 2004 WL 1611074, at *3 (N.D. 11l July 16, 2004)
(stating that access to proof factor is neutral when documents are easily transferable).
The last considerations, access to the accident site and the source of plaintiff’s alleged injury,
are more weighty. Plaintiff says he was injured by a plug that can be removed from the hotel room,
obviating the need for a site visit, and easily shipped to Illinois. At this point, however, the source
culprit.
of plaintiff's injury is a matter of conjecture. It may be, as plaintiff says, that the plug is the
Or it may be that the wiring in the hotel room or something else entirely is to blame. Thus, it is
a site visit
quite possible that the source of plaintiff's injury cannot be transported to Iilinois and/or
will be required. Accordingly, the access to evidence factor militates in favor of transfer.
Convenience of the Witnesses
When evaluating this factor, the Court must examine “the nature and quality” of each
proposed witness’ testimony, not just the number of witnesses each party intends to call. Id. The
Court must also consider whether the witnesses are likely to appear voluntarily, whether they will
be subject to compulsory process, and whether they are experts, whose attendance is controlled by
the party who hired them. Id.; Karrels v. Adolph Coors Co., 699 F. Supp. 172, 176 (N.D. IIL. 1988).
Defendant identifies as witnesses: (1) Dr. Gonzales, plaintiff’s treating physician and an
Tlinois resident; (2) four of its current employees, who are Michigan residents; and (3) one former
employee, whose current whereabouts are unknown. Dr. Gonzales cannot be compelled to appear
in Michigan, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, but because he is a colleague of plaintiff’s, he may do so
voluntarily. The four Michigan residents, who are expected to testify about their knowledge of the
incident or defendant’s policies with respect to building maintenance, cannot be compelled to appear
in Mllinois. Jd, But, as long as they remain in defendant’s employ, it can likely induce them to
appear here voluntarily. See Coleman v. Buchheit, Inc., No. 03 C 7495, 2004 WL 609369, at *2
(N.D. 1. Mar. 22, 2004) (stating that “courts generally assign little weight to the location of
employee witnesses, as they are under the control of the parties themselves”). In short, the record
does not disclose which of defendant’s witnesses, if any, will be inconvenienced if the case remains
in Illinois.
Plaintiff’s evidence is no better. He specifically identifies only two witnesses, Drs. Gonzales
and Vern, whom he plans to call at trial. He does not, however, specify the substance of their
expected testimony, indicate whether they will be called as fact or expert witnesses, state where Dr.
Vern resides or say whether either doctor will voluntarily appear in Michigan. Thus, it is also not
by a
clear whether or the extent to which plaintiff’s expected witnesses will be inconvenienced
transfer.
On this record, the Court cannot say that litigating in Michigan will clearly be more
convenient for the witnesses. But the sparse and equivocal evidence on this factor, which is usually
the most important private interest, Hanley, 6 F. Supp. 2d at 775, precludes us from giving it great
weight. Thus, the convenience of the witnesses militates against transfer, but only slightly.
Convenience of th rti
The convenience-of-the-parties factor concerns the parties’ “respective residences and their
ability to bear the expenses of litigating in a particular forum.” /d. at 776. Plaintiff contends that
the defendant-corporation is better able to bear the expense of litigating ina foreign jurisdiction than
heis. However, plaintiff, who is a plastic surgeon, does not say that he lacks the resources to litigate
his case in Michigan. Because neither party contends that they cannot afford to litigate in a foreign
jurisdiction, this factor is neutral.
Speed to Trial
This case will progress at roughly the same pace, regardless of its location. if the case goes
to trial, it will do so five months earlier in Michigan. See Federal Court Management Statistics
2005, http://www.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/cmsdl()()s .pl (last visited Oct. 11,2006). Ifitis resolved in
another manner, that disposition will occur three months earlier here. Id. In either event, the
differences are not significant enough to tip the balance in either direction.
Familiarity with Applicable Law
A district court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law principles of its forum state
to determine which law governs the case. Miller, 914 at 977-78. Illinois uses the “most significant
relationship” test to determine the choice of law for a tort case. Jd. at 97 8. To determine which state
has the most significant relationship to this dispute, we consider: “the place where the injury
occurred; the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; the parties’ domiciles, residences,
places of incorporation, and places of business; and the place where the parties’ relationship, if any,
is centered.” Id. The alleged injury and injury-causing conduct occurred in Michigan, and the
hip to
parties relationship is centered there. Therefore, Michigan has a more significant relations
this case than does Illinois, and its law applies.
Though tort law is not extraordinarily complex, a Michigan court will have more familiarity
with Michigan tort law than would this Court. Because “a diversity case should be decided by the
court most familiar with the applicable state law,” Karrels, 699 F. Supp. at 178, the choice-of-law
factor weighs in favor of transfer.
Community Interest sirability of Resolving Dispute in Its Local
“Resolving litigated controversies in their locale is a desirable goal of the federal courts.”
Doage v. Bd. of Regents, 950 F. Supp. 258, 262 (N.D. 1Il. 1997). Because this case arises from
events that took place in Michigan, is controlled by Michigan law, and implicates witnesses and
evidence that are located there, Michigan has a great interest in having it litigated there. Certainly,
Illinois has an interest in providing its residents with a forum for redressing their injuries, but given
its marginal relationship to this case, Illinois’ interest is subordinate to that of Michigan. The
community interest factor, therefore, weighs in favor of transfer.
6
On balance, the private and public interest factors favor transferring this case to Michigan.
Michigan is the situs of material events and the home state of most of the witnesses, the physical
evidence is located there and its law, with which a Michigan court will be far more familiar, governs
this case. Plaintiff does not say that he is unable to litigate in Michigan or that the two doctor-
witnesses he identifies are unpaid fact witnesses who will not voluntarily appear there. The case
will progress at roughly the same pace in either court and, because the accident occurred there,
Michigan has a greater interest than Illinois in resolving this case. Defendant’s motion to transfer
is, therefore, granted.
Co ion
For all of the reasons stated above, the defendant’s motion to transfer venue {doc. no. 14]
is granted. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED: /5/ ) 7/d s
"fION.RONALD A. G ,
United States District Judge *
: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 61 Filed: 11/14/06 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #:246

219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
> 7 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
MICHAEL W. DOBBINS
CLERK
November 14, 2006
‘USDC- Eastem District of Michigan

Theodore Levin United States Courthouse
231 West Lafayette Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48226
RE: Toriumi v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.

Case No: 1:06-cv-1720
Enclosed is the certified record which is being transferred to your court pursuant to an order entered on
10/27/2006 by the Honorable Judge Guzman. Enclosed is a certified copy of the transfer order and docket
sheet .
As of January 18, 2005 for civil and criminal cases, our court uses electronic case filing. You may access our
electronic case file and print copies of electronically filed documents by following the procedures on the
attached Instruction Sheet. You will need Adobe Acrobat reader loaded on your computer in order to view the
documents. If you are an electronic court, you may upload the documents. All documents filed prior to
electronic filing are included in this transfer package. (January 18,2005 for civil and criminal cases)
Please DO NOT MAKE THE ENCLOSED INSTRUCTION SHEET A PART OF THE OFFICIAL
RECORD as it contains your login and password to our system. This login and password should not be shared
with anyone other than federal court personnel who would have a need to access our electronic case file system.
Please acknowledge receipt on the enclosed copy of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk
By: G.Jones
Deputy Clerk
Enclosures
New Case No. Date
SENLER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION
m Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also completa
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
W Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you. 8. Received by ( Printed Nams) C. Date of Delivery
B Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
D. Is dellvery address differsnt from item 17 £ Yes
1. Article Addressed to: 1f YES, enter defivery address below: LI No
USDC-Eastern District of Michigan .

Theadore Levin United States Courthouse
231 West Lafayette Bivd, 3. Service Type
Detrot, M1 48226 O Certified Mall 1 Express
Mall
O Registered 3 Return Receipt for Merchandise
O insured Mall__ 01 C.00,
4, Restricted Dellvery? (Extra Foe} O Yes
2. Article Number
(Transtorfrom servica labe)) 7?00k 0100 0ODL 7312 4505
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102506-02-M-1540
@Q\/ |r][ 20 FILED

2V
NO 7 2006
w.
CLERK, U.5. DISTRICT COURT
agelD #:248
|
f 70909 s,
i 10014 Yoz ‘Pang :w%e“_m._ I ‘obeoy
(0zz199p) Stouny yo
Case: 1:06-cv-01720
US District Court for
Eastern District of Michigan
Case 2:06-cv-15203
Disposition: Settled
DEAN TORIUMI, MD -vs- RITZ-CARLTON

Case 2:06-cv-15203-PDB-VMM ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 11/21/06 Page 1 of 29
' UNITED $TATES DISTRICT COURT

219 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
November 14, 2006
USDC- Eastern District of Michigan

Theodore Levin United States Courthouse
231 West Lafayette Blvd.
Detroit, Ml 4&226
Case: 2·06-cv-15203
Assigned To· Borman, Paul D
Referral Judge: Morgan Virginia M
RE: Toriumi v. The Ritz·Carlton Hotel Company, L.LC. Filed 11-21-2006 At oioa PM
Case No: I :06-cv-1720 6~~~~6~;~MI V THE RITZ CARL TON H
Enclosed is the certified record which is being transferred to your court pursuant to an order entered on
I012712006 by the Honorable Judge Guzman. Enclosed is a certified copy of the tran~fcr order and docket
sheet .
As of January 18, 2005 for civil and criminal cases, our court uses electronic case filing. You may access our
electronic case file and print copies of electronically filed documents by following the procedures on the
attached Instruction Sheet. You will need Adobe Acrobat reader loaded on your computer in order to view the
documents. If you are ,,n electronic court, you 111ay upload the documents. All documents filed prior to
electronic nling are included in thi, transl"cr package. (January t 8, 2005 for civil and criminal cases)
Please DO NOT MAKE THE ENCLOSED INSTRUCTION SHEET A PART OF TUF.. OFFICIAL
RECORD as it contains your login and pa%word to our system. This login and password should not be shared
with anyone other than federal court personnel who would have a need to access our electronic case file system.
Please acknowledge receipt on the enclosed copy of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk
By: G. Janee,;...~
Deputy Clerk
Enclosures
New Cast No. Date -------
Docim1ent 1
j
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 1 of 9
✓,At 1::-,<
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 11,
4/4
W,3 IJ V
IS:"-
EASTERN DIVISION C1,,tl(:,,'l'fJJf:;fT( ]?6
~ "-s ~ Ir. 7'i-"i
DEAN M, TORIUMI, ; ~0-'::' Oo 6
, "1~1itc,
Plaintiffs, I "'1111\'J-
-vs-
06CV1720
COMPANY, L.L.C.,
JUDGE GUZMAN
MAG. DENLOW
Defendant. -) - -
NOTICE OF REl\llOVAL
Pursuant to Title 26 U.S.C. § 1441, et seq,, Defendant, THE RITZ·
CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L,L,C., by and throui;ih one of its attorneys,
ROBERT M. BURKE of JOHNSON & BFJLl,, l,TD., hereby gives trnli~e of the
r0rnoval of the above-captioned action from the Circuit Court uf Cook County -
Law Division, Case No. 06 L 289 to the United State~ District Court, Northern
Di~trict of lllim)is, Easturn Divi•iun, and states the following:
1. On or about January 10, 2006, Plaintiff initiated the above
captfoned lawsuit by the filing of a Complaint entitled Dean M. Turiumi v. Th5.
Rit~-Carlton Hotel Company, L,L.C., Docket No, 06 L 289. A copy of the initial
Complaint at Law is attached hereto, labeled Exhibit "A", and incorpuratud
herein by reference.
2. On or about February 24, 2006, Plaintiff cau~<;>d a Summons to be
issued, which s~1mmons wus "erved upon lhe Ril:t-Carlton Hotel Company,
L.L.C.'s registered a'lent un March 7, 2006, A copy of the Summons is attached
hcrctu, labeled Exhibit "B", and incorporated herein by reference.

3, The United States District Court has jurisdiction over the above
described action pursuant to 28 U.S,C, § 1332 and § l 441 for the foll"win~
reasons:
(a) Plaintitl, Dean M. Toriumi, at the time the h1wsuit was

commenced and at all relevant times, has been a resident
and citizen of the St~te <>f Illinois;
(b) The Defendant, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C ..

was, at the time of the commencement tif this action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County and at all relevant times, a
limited liability company formed under the laws of the State
of Delaware wiU, its principle place of business located in
Bethesda, Marylru:1d. The members of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C. are: Marriott International Capital Corp.,
Maniott Senior Holdings Company, MI Holding, L.P., RC.
Marriott Ill, Inc., and R.C, Marriott, Inc. Marriott
International Capital C(JTJl. is a Delaware Corporation with
its headquarter$ and principle place of business in
Bethesda, Maryland. Marriott Senior Holdings Company is
u D~laware eorporation with its corporate headq,1arters and
principle place of b,rniness in Bethesda, Maryland. R.C.
Marriott, lnc., is a Delaware Corporation with its
headquarters ,md principle place of bu sines$ in Bethesd,i,
Maryland, RC, Marriott lll, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation
with its headquarters and principle place of business in
Bethesda, Maryland, Ml Holding, l,.P., is a Uelaware
Limited Partnership with its headquarters and principle
place of business in Bethesda, Maryland. Its partno,rs are
RC. Marriott, lnc., RC. Marriott 11, Inc., and ~'red V. Malek
Both RC, Man-iott, Jnc. and R.C. Murriotl II, Inc, are
Pelaw,are Corporations with their corporate headquarters
and principle place~ in business in Bethesda, Maryland.
Fred Malek is a Virginia resident and citizen. TI1c foregoing
statements were tnie as of the date the instant lawsuit was
filed and at ell relevilllt times,
Defendant is, therefore, a citizen, for diversity of citizenship

purposes, of the States of Delaware, Virginia, and
Maryland;
(c) According to the allegations contained in the Complaint

filed by tho Plaintiff herein, the amount uf damages sought
in this action is in excess of the jurisdictional limit of the
Law Division of the Circuit Court uf COtlk County, which is
$50,000.00, Plaintiff has submitted a report from an
vr\hopedic surgeon indicatmg that Plaintiff has suffered
permanent in.Junes as the result of an electrical ~hock
received by him at the ~ubject hotel. Plainti!T is a pla9tic

surgeon and claims that the electri"',l shock has interfered
with bis ability to perform surgery. Based upon the
foregoing, it is Defendant's good faith belief that the ammml
in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive
of interest and costs;
(d) This Notice of Removal is bci.tl.g flied with the Clerk of the
United States Pi~lrit'l Court for the Northern District,
Eastern Division, within thirty (30) di.ya of aervic" uf the
~ummons and complaint on thfa Defendant;
(e) This action, based upon diversity of cili:,:;ensh1p and the

amo,m( in controversy is. therefore, properly removable
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1441 (Iii).
4. Defendant will promptly file a copy of thi~ Notice of Removal with
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook in the State of lllinoi~.
L,L,C., respectfully requests that thi~ case proceed before this Court as illl
action properly removed.
Respoctiully submitted,
JOHNSON&, BELL, LTD.,
!3y: - .' - .,___,,:, ..,

Ro erl M. , nc o e
Attorneys for the Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Curnpany, L.L,C.
ROBERT M. BURKE
JOHNSON II<. BELL, LTD ,
:;ia WeRt Monroe Street, #2700
Attorney Nu, 06347
3
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Docum"nt·

" 1 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 4 of 9
r:c. n'!.l:. ClRCUli COURT OF COOK cotJNTY, !Ll..Dl01$

COUNTY PEPARTM};NT, LAW PIVJSION
l>'E&.'I M. TOllltiMl, )
)
1.'la\ntltf, )
)
V,
)
)
T1ll!. IUTZ-CARL'IOt-1 H01EL
)
COMl'~, L,L,C,,
)
D!:fendants. l
\ (t~
NoW eol'l\l:1' tht Plaintift PE.AN M, !OR.IUM!, by and tliro~ ,.\ hii;.::ntoliflra,
.,. . . .~....
. ~
Daley & Mtihall, P.C., llll'1 for hill C0111plllint 11/jWlsl. tJ,c Di:f~dant, ~ ;.Rl<rt:•
~l:.:~ ;
ChlU;roN !iOiJi.L COMP II.NY, L.L.C., Mte\naftu '"CHI/. tuTZ", states as f ~ : t!f
l, i-l ti\ Ii.MS ~levt.nt hereto, tile Ode!lli.lll'i\, THE itrTZ., ,,;;:,, : ~o'G.i;w,
e
l!mitcd lhtbl\\Ly coxpoi•\lon, aut\1Uri%¢d to do arid doing b1,11;lnt$> in tho Stateli uf !UilloiS
Md Michi,lan, 11.!llong othm.

2, At 1111 tl!lli\1 ff!\cvll!lt h•rl!II), t~ Plainlifi', !)!!AW M:. 1'0RIT.1Ml. wrui wd Is
ar~sld.!:nt of Cook County, )llinolJI.

i. At alt time~ relevant htr(.'((), THE mz was tbe own~r ot cenllin rt"1
llli~tc 1"""-ud ai.lOO Town Ccntor t>dv•, X:,oub0m, ~cruS111l, 011 vihv.:b c.al ~state nl.E
ll.ITZ did opCl'lltll, lllllintain 111\d e<intcol a ,:-AAaio i,111:>llo \'lolll\, Wl'IUtlOti\y lt.Mwn as The
Rhi•Carl\(1)1 Ocarbo?JL
4, On JtnllfllY 14, ?.004, the l'llli!>til'f,Desn M. TO'!'lumi, WDI lawfully on tllo
.
prcm.'LStll as aforci;c.lt:1 u apaying B,W.$1. or $aid. hotel tlld pl•ce oi public acco!MllldaUon,
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 1 Filed 03/29/2006 Page 5 of g
S, At ,11 time, h.er<tlna!'ler mmtioned, It wu the d11ty of the Defimdanl lo
cierdst ordiiwy cue in lhe ownership, maintenance and comrol of their real aru!
personal propc:ny to set that th,.Lr prtmi!e~, end the personal p:operty ma!ntalned
lllerton, Wll'/t in 1eaaonllhly safe conditillll for the use of busin¢U invitees on the
pl'Qpc:rty, 111olud!ng lhe Pla!ntifrhe1oio,

6. At ill times hcteinafter mi,ntlan~d, the l'lain1lt'f, DWI M. Toriurn(. w:l! in
1hc =rclse of c,rdlnuy care for hi, owl' nfoty.

7. Al; all time$ r,:J,:,1ant hcrero, the Dcfel'ldant pravid~d certain eltct1ical
fixtum In iu rooms, inctu4lng a fi1'tlll'e located next to the b~d behind the rughtstand,
8. On the date a~ dbreillid, th~ Plaintiff dld reach behind tke nightslllt'ld to
tllllove the plug f\'~m the outlet so that he oauld u,c the cltctrie!tl 01.11let for anDthl!:l'
PU!pOSQ,
9. Upon grasping the plug, the Plalntlffwosjolw! with a sho~k of electricity,
which was gtlffMe11tly severe to cause hirn to fall back to tltc floor.
10. The plug !n tM h<1t<l room ;1,1 th~ time and place 1fu1esnld had bare wj;es
and WI!.$ 110t p1op~tlY imulated, thul dtrectly oaus~ the rtalnt!ff to suffer the elcctrtcal
shoek. and btcome !iliuted.

I I. Tile electfi<:111 shoek !11ffered by lhe Pl•lntifi •~ tfotes.i.td wu dlrecUy and
pu,x\mately ca11nd by one, ~ more of the fllregoing cru:eleu and negllgcnt aots of the
Defendant, li, violation of its dull' a,g aforesald:

(a) Failum to ni.!ntain !ts premi1es in a reuonnbly 1111fe condlt!Qn,
(b) Failure to maintain !IJ: cleotri<.al !lx:tutts in a re~,onnbly safe

condition;
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 1 Filed 0312912006 Page 6 of 9
A.ltowln11, ber• ...,;res lllq>Qm;d on (he !)lug to remain in a !'llhlic a.~

11(di~d by its bwiMS, invitees, although 0itfend,11t knew or
should hav~ l;,t\oWI\ of the d,mgo,r thereby cre~ll'.d,
failllf~ to wai:n the l'lu.incifftbat !h,rc was a defective plug •nd
(d}
flx.tU!l) in hh room;
Fllllut~ tO c\imi111t~ the hl>Wil caused 'ttj ll)e l!l\pt,sled witts on the
electrical eord in the room as aforescid.
l'L N,. n di,=tt wd pmimate l'l!Sult of on~ or m~c of tll= fore~oing, the
!'lalnt\ff, pea.n M, Toriumi, ,uf!'.oi:cd ,jjverH Injuries to SJnd about his body, both
!ntt:J'lllllly and ex!/lrll,llly, of a pffllltntlll and l!llilinll n'1llfl!, \Wioh have caused and will
continllll to cause pain in body -.nd mind, and u ~ rl:.!u!t o( which the Plaintiff hu been
w;1d IH\tl cont\nlle kl be furth!'-t pl'll~t;d 1111d Ulllill!(j b;i art¢r,diog Ii:> bm ll.'lVJ>l duties and
atl'ai:s, ~ hill l<>Sl 11ad will In the~ lost p•t gain which he otherwise woi.tld have
tnade 1111d: ,cqulred. ,Ill t\'l Plalntifl' s <lmla.je,

W!mltEJ'ORE, Ilic r1runt1ff, DEAl'l M. TOtullMI.. pra)'$ fer judgment •s•lll:ll
Defelidtnt, TIIE It.tl7.. CA$.LTON non!. COMPANY. t..L.C,, a foreign limited
liabil!ty cot11oration in 1111 amout1t whkh Is wilhin th~jud1dltt!Q1ta\ power ofth[, Collli to
aw.w.l u proven by the evidemco, and in cittoes• otFlflY ib.ou&11nd n~llara ($So,ooo.oO),
plus coJl.c of !his j!ltli<:>n.
Bernord R¢<at.11n~va
tla.ley &. Moll'an, P.C.
150 Norm Wacktt' Orivo
S1.tile lSSO
Cbic,go, lUinQis ei060G
(317.) 42:Z-9999
Fitlll 'No. 36564
3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURj Of COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW D!VJS[O"N
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Ploint/fr. J NO, 2006 L OOW89
y )
) 1'1.... Servi·
THE lUTU:AALTON HOTEL l Th• RUi Carll~• Hot•I Co,.pany, LLC
COMl'ANY, l.L.<:., ) c.lo Pt<intlct Jb11 Corporllt.lon
) 33 N, L.S, Ile Stro<t
) Chl<•~o. IL
Sl!MMQN;S
VOU AP.fl SUMMONll!l on,! r<~•l!td l~~le •• in1111tr 10 !ho 0011!Pl•ln• In tht..,.,. • oal')I of W~ICh ii h,toto ,m,h•••"'
otherwis.:, 111• ya11, •ppu-... ••d p~ th• n:qulrid fct, In thuftloe of tho Cluk ofthi• C0<11Ht the t'ollall'lns !o<:,,tton:
l\!ohlfrl J. Ool')' C•ntor, ,o W. W,shlnt!On, fl.Qom 800, C:h1e,Jg0. llll.,.~6Ml)2,

"""°
<>flM, summons, l\<I oonntlnUh• dl)I ot ,.,..,1 ... IP YOU MIL TO DO SO, AJUDOMRNT BY
You '"lllt fil, w1th1n 30 ft)'I •ft•r
DaFAlll..'1' MAY OE BNfli;RtCI AOA!NST YOU FOR TH~ ltEUEf ltll0!1!STl!O IN Tift CoM~LAINT
To 1hr. offiecr.
Toi& lWrtmo,,, "'"'' l>I (llturood \,y the .m.., orotll;r ~rsc,n to...,,.., 11 .... glv,n for ..,.,1... wll~ Cl\i;l6iM,n<ot or,.rv1« llld
,..., lhay, ln1M•d••1•ty tl!or .,,.,,.. 1h,r;i11. .MD<1tb• fflode, this "'"'moou<•II b• r1tol'l\1ld JHl!dolilb!: Thln•mm0<\1 n,oy ""' b<
smed la1<r 1h10 lO d~• ofttt 11, datt. '1 ·, •
Cl~ or court
Lkmud f\oci:ia.11iova
D,_L~Y & M0!-11\N, 11:;,
Attomoy 11>r r1111nur,
I !ON, W,a,,_ On..., $ult• i,~o
C'h1~qi• Ulir,of, 6'QS04
31:ll-122-9999
A ~ N~ 36'64
DOROtHY !lit.OWN, c~m{K; o, 'rH! CiRCUrr COURT OP C'OOK CO~TY. ILLINOI$
t
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 1 Filed o:3/29/2006 Page 8 of 9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC J:-r1

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLXNOIS A.f,tJo
COUR✓,f <0 I::!,.
~
EASTERN DIVISION ~ tr ,3
DEAN M, TORltJMI, )
ou-ffrol'f :17 ,r~1,
-"'11(, ;:Jt'({fj 6 /'i) q
) ''11,p1~~~ v ~
Plaintiffs, I •.,,.r0o 'S
) ~ . . . . . . . '1'1,)"' ' '(/l?'r
-vs- )
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL l 06CV1720

COMPANY, I.,L,C,, l JUDGE GUZMAN
I MAG. DENLOW
Defendant. ) - ·- . - ·- - ·----·
NOTICE OF FILING NOTICli)_OF REMOVAL
'fO: Bernard R()ccanova

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
150 Nnrth Wacker Drive, Suite 1550
PLEA.SE TAKE NOTICE that a Notice of Removal of this action wa~ filed
wilh lhc United State~ District Court for the Northern District of lllinob,
Ea$tern Division, as Case No. -···· , ___ on March ___ , 2006. A copy oft.he
Notice of Rerno1tal has also been filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Law Division on March _... _, 2006. A copy of the Notice of Removal is
attached her~to.
By: -~1!!/k/'=:
Rnbert M. Burke, One of the
Company, I,. L_(.;_
ROBERT M. BURKE
JOHNSON & BELL, LT0,,
33 We~t Monroe Street, Suite 2700
'l'dephonc: (312) 0770
Attorney No. 06347
CERTlFICA'rE OF SERYJCE
STATE OF' ILLINOIS )

) SS,
COUNTY OF COOK )
LISA A, MORl<.ISON, bdng first duly ~worn up<m oaU1, deposes and
state$ that she served a copy of the above and foregoing NOTICE OF FILING
NOTICE OF REMOVAL to all attorneys of record, by depo!liting a copy of same
iu the United Stutce1 Mail, firnt clu,;s postage prepaid, this cfjffbay of March,
2006,
=·~
,-~~'......,_,L!,r'.!,t,',
~~naltics as provi<.led by la.w
pursuant to ILL.REV.STAT, CllAP. I 10
Sec. 1-109, 1 certify that the st'1tements
set forth herein are true and correcl.
,JOHNSON & BELLL, LTD,

Suite 2700
(312) 372-0770
Case 1:06-cv-O 1720 Document 59 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 1 of 1

Name of' An:l~ned Jud&e

Ronald A Guzman Sltttn,i Judg;e It Or her
or MR&btrate J•dee tban ,t,1111111o<1 Joda•

CASE DEAN M. TORTTJMI n. THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C.
TITLE
.'" ','
, .. ,
DOCKET tNTRY TEXT
Court's order of 10/25106 setting a briefing schedule on the issqe of which state law applies is vacated. Enter
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The defendant's motion to transfer venue [Doc. No. 14] is granted. The
Clerk of the Court is ordered to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan. This case is tenninated.
Any pending motions of schedules are stricken as moot.
■ [For further dct•il see separate order(s).] Doeket.ioa: to mail noticct,
Case 2:06-cv-15203
Assigned To· Borman, Paul D .
Referral Judge: Morgan, Virginia M
Filed. 11·21-2006 At 03 08 PM
TRANS TORIUMI V THE RITZ CARLTON H
OTEL CO (DA)
A TRUE COPY~A?TEST
MICHAEL W. DOBBINS, CLER!{
/
Ily .i,L.... . ··,•· ...........................
rJ
~-,,
.. U'!'Y ~~·:iJ:::~:t<
..........................
• S • DIST!Uc:•·. ,, •. ,· •n·, NO
. " ·•... .,. , RT!!ERN
OISTRl l' v?' iJ..LINors
DATE:..........
..,
(/./1 ',;/Oo&
, ........... ,.,.,.., ............. _,,,,_,,H
Counroom o.puty
lrtlti,i.:
I CG
06CI 720 DEAN M. TORIUMI vs. THll RITZ.CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C. Page 1 of I
Case 2:06-cv-15203-PDB-VMM
---·-ECF- ·No.
·
1, PageID.12 Filed 11/21/06 Page 12 of 29

J<'OR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOlS
EASTERN DIVISION Case: 2:06-cv-15203
Assigned To: Borman, Paul D
DEAN M. TORIUMI, ) Referral Judge. Morgan, Virginia M
) Filed 11-21-2006 At 03:08 i>M
Plaintiff, ) OTE':L CO (DA)
) 06 C 172l
v. )
) Judge Ronald A. Guzman
COMPANY, L.L.C., )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Dean Toriumi has sued the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C, alleging that he was injured
by an electrical shock he sustained while staying in one ofits hotels, Defendant has moved pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § ("section") 1404(a) to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan. For the rea:;;ons set forth below, the motion is granted.
Section 1404(a) states, "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district where it might have been
brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Transfer is appropriate under this section when: "(!) venue is
proper in the transferor district; (2) venue und jurisdiction are proper in the transferee district; and
(3) the transfer will foster the convenience oflhc parties and witnesses and will promote the interest
of justice." Amoco Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp,, 90 F. Supp. 2d 958, 959 (N.D. Ill. 2000), The
moving party has the burden of demonstrating that "the transferee forwn is clearly more
convenient." Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219-20 (7th Cir. 1986).
Case 1:06-cv-01720 Document 60 Filed 10/2712006 Page 2 of 7
The parties agree that jurisdiction and venue are proper both here and in the Eastern District
of Michigan. Thus, we will address only the last factor, the convenience of the parties and the
witnesses and the interests of justice. To evaluate this factor, we must examine various public and
private interests, Saunders v. Franklin, 25 F. Supp. 2d 855, 857 (N.D. Ill. 1998). The private
interests include: "(1) lhe plaintiffs choic~ of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the relative
ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the witnesses; and (5) the convenience to
the parties of litigating in the respective forums." Hanley v, Omarc, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 2d 770, 774
(NJ). Ill. 1998). The public interests include: "(I) the speed at which the case will proceed to trial;
(2) the court's familiarity with the applicable law; (3) the desirability of resolving controversies in
their locale; and (4) the relation of the community to the occurrence at issue." Id. at 777.
Plaintiffs Forum Choice & Situs of Matcrjal Events
Generally, plaintiff's choice of forum is given significant weight, especially if plaintiff
resides there. Id. at 774-75. If, however, the chosen forum has little connection to the cause of
action, plaintiffs choice is given less deference. Id. at 775.
Such is the case here. Plaintiff chose to sue in Illinois, but the state has little connection to
the suit. Plaintiff was injured in defendant's Michigan hotel, defendant's negligence, if any,
occurred in Michigan, and the parties' relationship is centered there. Thus, Michigan is the situs of
material events. Cf Miller v, Long-Airdox Co., 914 F,2d 976, 978 (7th Cir. 1990) (stating, in the
choice-of.law context, that court considers "the place where the injury occurred; the place where
the conduct causing the injury occurred; the parties' domiciles, residences, places ofincorporation,
and places of business; and the place where the parties' relationship, if any, is centered" to detennine
which state has the most significant relationship to a tort case), Because the situs of material events
2
is Michigan, plaintiffs forum choice receives much less deference. Taken together, these two
factors militate against transfer, but only slightly.
Belativ~ Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
Defendant argues that this case should be moved to Michigan because the hotel, the electrical
plug that allegedly caused plaintiff's il\iury, and its records pertaining to the incident are in
Michigan. Plaintiff says the case should stay in Illinois because the plug can easily be shipped here,
a site visit to the hotel will be unnecessary, and the records pertaining to his medical treatment are
here.
The location of the parties' records matters little. Neither party contends that the relevant
documents arc too voluminous to be feasibly shipped to another jurisdiction. As a result, the fact
that plaintiff's records are in Illinois and defendant's records are in Michigan has no impact on the
analysis. See Stanley v. Marion, No. 04 C 514, 2004 WL 1611074, at +3 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2004)
(stating that access to proof factor is ncu1ral when documents are easily transferable).
The last consider&tions, access to lhe accident site and the source of plaintiff's alleged injury,
are more weighty. Plaintiff says he was injured by a plug that can be removed from the hotel room,
obviating the need for a site visit, and easily shipped to Illinois, At this point, however, the source
of plaintiff's injury is a matter of conjecture. It may be, as plaintiff says, that the plug is the culprit.
Or it may be that the wiring in the hotel room or something else entirely is to blame. Thus, it is
quite possible that the source of plaintiff's injury cannot be transported to Ulinois and/or a site visit
will be required. Accordingly, the access to evidence factor militates in favor of transfer.
3
Case 1:06-cv-O 1720 Document 60 Filed 10/27/2006 Page 4 of 7
Convenience or the WitneS11es
When evaluating this factor, the Court must examine "the nature and quality" of each
proposed witness' testimony, not just the munber of witnesses each party intends to call. Id. The
Court must also consider whether the witnesses are likely to appear voluntarily, whether they will
be subject to compulsory process, and whether they are experts, whose attendance is controlled by
the party who hired them. Id.; Karrels v. Adolph Coors Co., 699 F. Supp. 172, 176 (N.D.111. 1988).
Defendant identifies as witnesses: (I) Dr. Gonzales, plaintiff's treating physician and an
Illinois resident; (2) four of its current employees, who are Michigan residents; and (3) one fonner
employee, whose current whereabouts are unknown. Dr. Gonzales cannot be compelled to appear
in Michigan, su Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, but because he is a colleague of plaintiff's, he may do so
voluntarily. The four Michigan residents, who are expected to testify about their knowledge of the
incident or defendant's policies with respect to building maintenance, cannot be compelled to appear
in Illinois. Id. But, as long as they remain in defendant's employ, it can likely induce them to
appear here voluntarily. See Coleman v. Buchhe/1, Inc., No. 03 C 7495, 2004 WL 609369, at • 2
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2004) (stating that "courts generally assign little weight to the location of
employee witnesses, as they are under th,, control of the parties themselves"). In short, the record
does not disclose which of defendant's witnesses, if any, will be inconvenienced if the case remains
in Illinois.
Plaintiff's evidence is no better. He specifically identifies only two witnesses, Drs. Gonzales
and Vern, whom he plans to call at trial. He does not, however, specify the substance of their
expe1,ted testimony, indicate whether they will be called as fact or expert witnesses, state where Or.
Vern resides or say whether either doctor will voluntarily appear in Michigan. Thus, it is also not
4
clear whether or the extent to which plaintiffs expected witnesses will be inconvenienced by a
transfer.
On this record, the Court cannot say that litigating in Michigan will clearly be more
convenient for the witnesses. But the sparse and equivocal evidence on this factor, which is usually
the most important private interest, Hanley, 6 F. Supp. 2d at 775, precludes us from giving it great
weight. Thus, the convenience of the witnesses militates against transfer, but only slightly.
Conv~nience of the Parties
The convenience-of-the-parties factor concerns the parties' "respective residences and their
ability to bear the expenses of litigating in a particular forwn." Id. at 776. Plaintiff contends that
the defendant-corporation is better able to bear the expense oflitigating in a foreignjurisdiction than
he is. However, plaintiff, who is a plastic surgeon, does not say that he lacks the resources to litigate
his case in Michigan. Because neither party contends that they cannot afford to litigate in a foreign
jurisdiction, this factor is neutral.
Speed to Trial
This case will progress at roughly the same pace, regardless ofits location. Jfthe case goes
to trial, it will do so five months earlier in Michigan. See Federal Court Management Statistics
2005, http://www.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/cmsd2005.pl (last visited Oct. 11, 2006). !fit is resolved in
another manner, that disposition will occur three months earlier here. Id. In either event, the
differcnc~s arc not significant enough to tip the balance in either direction.
5
Familiarity with Appljcable I,aw
A district ccurt sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law principles of its forum state
to determine which law governs the case. Miller, 914 at 977-78. Illinois uses the "most significunt
relationship'' test to detem1ine the choice oflaw for a tort case. Id. at 978. To detennine which state
has the most significant relationship to this dispute, we consider: "the place where the injury
occurred; the place where the: conduct causing the injury occWTcd; the parties' domiciles, residences,
places ofincorporation, and places of business; and the place where the parties' relationship, ifuny,
is centered." Id. The alleged injury and injury-causing conduct occurred in Michigan, and the
parties' relationship is centered there. Therefore, Michigan has a more significant relationship to
this case than does Illinois, and its law applies.
Though tort law is not extraordinarily complex, 11 Michigmi court will have more familiarity
with Michigan tort law than would this Court. Because "a diversity case should be decided by the
court most familiar with the applicable state law," Karrels, 699 F. Supp. at 178, the choice-of-law
factor weighs in favor of transfer.
Community Interest & Desinbillty of RHolvin(;'. Dispute in Its Locale

"Resolving litigated Controversie$ in their locale is a desirable goal of the federal courts."
Doage v. Bd. of Regents, 950 F. Supp. 258, 262 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Because this case arises from
events that took place in Michigan, is controlled by Michigan law, and implicates witnesses and
evidence that are located there, Michigan has a great interest in having it litigated there. Certainly,
Illinois has an interest in providing its residents with a forum for redressing their inj urics, but given
its marginal relationship to this case, Illinois' interest is subordinate to that of Michigan. The
community interest factor, therefore, weighs in favor of transfe.r.
6
On balance, the private and public. interest factors favor transferring this case to Michigan.
Michigan is the situs of material events and the home state of most of the witnesses, the physical
evidence is located there and its law, with which a Michlgan court will be far more familiar, governs
this case. Plaintiff does not say that he is unable to litigate in Michigan or that the two doctor-
witnesses he identifies are unpaid fact witnesses who will not voluntarily appear there, The case
will progress at roughly the same pace in either court and, because the accident occurred there,
Michigan has a greater interest than Illinois in resolving this case. Defendant's motion to transfer
is, therefore, granted.
Conclusion
for alt of the reasons stated &hove, the defendant's motion to transfer venue [doc. no. 14]
is granted. The Clerk of the Court is order~d to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan.
SO ORDERED. ENTERED:
,.,
_.,,~---CE.~~~=-"~=b-:'~~i:1<~{_
H
United States Dlstric
7
Case 2:06-cv-15203-PDB-VMM ECF
• lJ.S. District Court, Northern Illinois. No... https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?l
Dock 1, PageID.19 Filed 11/21/06 Page 19 of 29
l l329885507467-L_923_0·1
CLOSED, DENLOW, TRANSFER

Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 2.5 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-01720
Internal Use Only
Toriumi v. The Ritz-Carlton IIotel Company, L.L.C. Date Filed: 03/29/2006

Assigned to: Honorable Ronald A. Guzman Jury Demand: Defendant
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other
Jurisdiction: Diver~i!y
Plaintiff
Oc11n M Toriumi represented by Bernard Roccnnova
Dalev & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
Chicago, TL 60606
(312) 422-9999
Email: rocc@Jdalcymohan.com
LEAD A7TORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Michael Burke

Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 372-0770
Email: burker@jbltd.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BR NOTICED
Blake Ashton Barron

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
1550
Chicago, IL 60606
(312)422-9999
Email: barron@daleymohan.com
Eydie Rachel Glassman

Suite 2700
I of9 11/14/2006 9:54 AM

Case_2:06-cv-15203-PDB-VMM ECF
- U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois. No.
Dock 1, PageID.20 Filed 11/21/06 Page
... https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl? 20 of 29
I 1 I 329885507467-L_923 _0-1
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 372-0770
Email: glassmane@jbltd.com
Mary Louise Knndyba

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
#1550
Chicago, IL 60606
(312)422-9999
Email: mlkandyba@daleymohan.com
Timothy R. Couture
Johnson & 13ell, Ltd.
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 372"0770
Email: couturct@jbltd.com
A ITO RNEY TO BE NOTICED
V
Defendant
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, represented by Robert Michael Burke
L.L.C. (See above for address)
!.EAD A7TORNl.!,'Y

(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO RE NOTIC'ED
Timothy R. Couture
ATTORNEY TO RE NOTICED
ThirdParty Plaintiff
The Ritz-Cnrlton Hotel Company, represented by Robert Michael Burke
L.L.C. (See above for addre~s)
A ITO RNEY TO Bl!,' NOTICED
V.
Third Partv Defendant
2 of9 11/14/2006 9:54 AM

Case. 2:06-cv-15203-PDB-VMM ECF
- U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois. No.
... https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?I 21 of 29
I l329885507467-L_923_0-I
represented by Charles W. Planck

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz_, Edelman &
Dicker, LLP
Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 704-0550
Email: charles.planek@wilsonelser.com
DEAD ATTORNF:Y
ATTORNRYTO BR NOTICED
Kamilah Aminah P11rker

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman &
Dicker, LLP
Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60602
(312) 704-0550
Email: kamilah.parker@wilsonelser.com

Wilson, Elser, Moskowit--:, Edelman &
Dicker
Suite 2600
Chicago, II, 60602
(312) 704-0550
Emai I: lisa.ackerman@wilsonelser.com
ThirdPnrty Plaintiff
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company,
L.L.C.
V.
Third P11rty Defendant
Hybrinetics, Inc, represented by Ch11rlcs W. Pl11nck
(See above li.,r address)
Li,1D ATT'ORNEY
Kamilah Aminah Parker

ATTORNEY TO JJE NOTICED
3 of9 11/14/2006 9:54 /\M

• U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois No.
- Dock 1, PageID.22 Filed 11/21/06 Page
... https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl? 22 of 29 923 __ 0- 1
l 11329885507467-L
Cross Claimant
Dean M Toriumi
V.
Cross Defendant
Hybrinctics, Inc.
,,,,
Date Filed # Docket Text

03/29/2006 i:11 NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, case number
(2006L000289) filed by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. (jmm,)
(Entered: 03/30/2006)
03/29/2006 "12 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (jmm,) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
03/29/2006 Q3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company,
L.L.C. hy Roher! Michael Burke. (jmm,) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
,·--""""""""""'""'

L.L.C. by Eydie Rachel Glassman. (imm,) Modified on 6/22/2006 (vcf, ).
(Entered: 03/30/2006)
L.L.C. by Timothy R. Couture. (jmm,) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
03/29/2006 6 RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid on 3/29/2006 in the amount
of$250.00, receipt number 1111603. (jmm,) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
...-,. MMMMMM•w---~,
--
03/29/2006 Q7 JURY Demand by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. (jmm,)
(Entered: 03/30/2006)
,,,,.,,,..._,
03/31/2006 !;Jg l'vl!N UTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Status hearing set for
4/21/2006 at 09:30 AM. The Court orders the parties to appear for an initial
appearance and status hearing. All parties shall refer to and comply with
Judge Guzman's requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in Judge
Guzman's case management procedures, which can be found at:
www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (jms,) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
04/04/2006 <J,9 ANSWER to Complaint by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C.(Burke,
..
Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2006)
... ___ ,
04/04/2006 \,) I0 NOTICE by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. rn answer to

-
complaint2 (Burke, Roher!) (F.nter,;,d: 04/04/2006)
""""'"
04/05/2006 GJ I ATTORNEY Appearance lbr Plaintiff Dean M Toriumi by Dernard

Roccanova (Roccanova, Bernard) (Entered: 04/05/2006)
04/05/2006 11]1 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Dean M Toriumi by I3lake Ashton
Darron (Barron,. Blake). (Entered: 04/05/2006).
. --
4 of9 11114/2006 9:54 AM

- U.S. District Coun, Northern Illinois No.
- Dock 1, PageID.23 Filed 11/21/06 9Page
... htlps://ccl'.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bi1vDktRpt.pl 23 of 29
Ill 329885507467-L_923 __ 0-1
'113 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Dean M Toriumi by Mary Louise

Kandyba (Kandyba, Mary) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
04/13/2006 3]4 MOTION by Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. to transfer
case Venue (Atlachments: # l # I # l # 1 # 1)(I3urke, Robert) (Entered:
04/13/2006)
_,..,..,...,...- - . . . . l - - - - l - . . - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
04/13/2006 i) NOTICE of Motion by Robert Michael Burke for presentment of motion lo
transfer case14 before Honorable Ronald/\.. Guzman on 4/20/2006 at 09:30
AM. (Burke, Robert) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
04/18/2006 iJ 16 REPORT of Rule 26(t) Plarming Meeting by Dean M Toriumi (Roccanova,
Ilcrnard) (Entered:_04/18/2006)
_ _ _....:..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--!
04/18/2006 '117 Proposed Sd1eduling Order hy Dean M Toriumi (Attachments: ii l

Certi licate of Service )(Roccanova, Bernard) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
04/18/2006 ~ 18 MOTION by Plaintiff Dean M Torhu11i lo set a briefing schedule on
Defendant'.Y Motion lo Tran.fer (Roccanova, Ilernard) (Entered: 04/18/2006)
()4/18/2006 \) J9 Plaint!tl's NOTICE of Motion by Bernard Roccanova for presentment of
motion by filer to set a briefing schedule.l]!_ before Honorable Ronald A.
Guzman on 4/20/2006 at 09:30 AM. (Roccanova, Bernard) (Entered:
04/18/2006)
04/20/2006 <120 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald/\.. Guzman :Status hearing held on
4/20/2006. Rule 26 compliance by 5/22/2006. Amended Pleadings due hy
7/2 I /2006. Joindcr of Parties due by 7/21/2006. Fact discovery ordered
closed by 8/3 l /2006. Plaintiffs expert reports by 11 /1106. Plaintiff's experts
shall be deposed by 12/15/06. Defendant's expert reports by 1/29/07.
Defendant's experts to be deposed by 2/28/07. Dispositive motions due by
3/26/2007. Status hearing set for 9/8/2006 at 09:30 AM.Mailed notice (cjg,)
(Entered: 04/26/2006)
04/20/2006 ()21 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman: Motion to set a briefing
schedule .!1!_ is granted, Set deadlines/hearing as to motion to transfor easel'!
: Responses due by 5/4/2006. Replies due by 5/11/2006. Rulii1g to be by
mail. Mailed notice (cjg,) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
1 - - - - - - - 1 - . . - - - - l - - - - - - - ·.. · - - " - ~ - - -~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
05/04/2006 1)22 RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSf'ER (Roccanova,
Bernard) (Entered: 05/04/2006)
05/11/2006 ll23 REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSF, TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUF, (Burke, Robert) (Entered: 05/11/2006)
05/16/2006 ()24 MOTION by Plaintiff Dean M Toriumi for protective order pursuant ro
HIPAA (Roccanova, Bernard) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
06/06/2006 1)25 MOTION by Plaintiff Dean M Toriumi for qualified protective order
pursuant to HIPAA (eav,) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
06/06/2006 326 NOTICE of Motion by Dean M Toriumi for presentment of motion for
prntective order;?d before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 6/13/2006 at
5 of9 11/14/2006 9:54 AM

.S. District Couit, Northern Illinois No.
- Dock 1, PageID.24 Filed 11/21/06 Page 24 of 29
... https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl'/111329885507467-L_923_0-1
09:30 AM. (eav,) (Entered: 06/07/2006)

--------------------;
06/06/2006 r:127 MINUTE entry bel'ore Judge Ronald A. Guz.man: Plaintiff seeks a qualified
protective order pursuant to IIIPAA permitting him to use and disclose
protected health infomiation pertaining to his own medical treatment and to
the treatment he provided his patients. Plainli ff has not, however: (I)
explained why any information relating lo his patients is necessary, or even
relevant, to this personal injury suit; or (2) indicated whether he told his
patients that he is seeking pennission to disclose their protected health
information, so they would have an opportunity to object. Plaintiff's motion
[doc. no. 24_ is, therefore, denied v,;ithout prejudice, Any amended motion
that plaitni ff files must be noticed up for a hearing by the comt, even if it is
agreed. Mailed notice (eav,) (Entered: 06108/2006)
06/0612006 '12~ MINUTE entry heforc Judge Ronald A. Gu:rnian : Plaintiff seeks a qualified
prot<:ctive order pursuant to 1-IIPAA permitting him to use and disclose
protected health information pertaining to his own medical treatment and to
the treatment he provided his patients, Plaintiff has not, however: (I)
explained why any information relating to his patients is necessary, or even
relevant, to this personal injury suit; or (2) indicated whether he told his
patients that he is seeking permission to disclose their protected health
information, so they would have an opportunity to object. Plaintiffs motion
is, therefore, denied without prejudice. Any amended motion that plaintiff
files must be noticed up for a hearing by the court, even ifit is agreed. (ar,)
(Entered: 06/13/2006)
06114/2006 ili29 Notice of Allocation of Fault to Non-Parties by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, LLC. (Burke, Robert) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
-------t-------------------------------1
06/ 14/2 006 0130 NOTICE by The Riv-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. re other29 Notice of
Allocation ofFc1u/1 lo Non-Parties (Burke, Robert) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
07/07/2006 \Jl3t SUPPLEMENT by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. to
Supplemenlal Producrion Request (Burke, Robert) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
-- ·•---,
07/11/2006 r:132 MOTION by Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. for leave
to file Third Party Complainl.fi1r Contribution (Attachments: # _I_ Exhibit
Attachment)(Burke, Robert) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
-----+
07/11/2006 (133 NOTICE of Motion by Robert Michael Burke for presentment of motion for
leave to file32 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/18/2006 at 09:30
AM. (Burke, Robert) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
07/18/2006 ~34 DUPLICATE filing of document number #35. THIRD party complaint by
The Ritz-Carlton llotel Company, L.L.C. against Hybrinetics, Jnc ../r1r
Contribution.(Burke, Rohert) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
07/18/2006 .:JJ~ THIRD party complaint by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., The
Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. against Hybrinetics, Inc. For
Contribution.(Burke, Robert) (Entered: 07 / I 8/2006)
6 of9 11/14/2006 9:54 AM

Case. 2:06-cv-15203-PDB-VMM ECF
- U.S. District Court, Northcm Illinois• No.
... hllps://ccf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpl.pl?l 25 of 29
I l329885507467-L_923_0-I
Q36 NOTICE by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., The Ritz-Carlton

Hotel Company, 1..L.C., The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. re third
party complaint35 (Flurke, Robert) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
07/18/2006 Q37 NOTICE of Correction regarding third party complaint 34. TIIE entry is a
duplicate filing of document number 35. Ump,) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
07/18/2006 iJ!J8 THIRD PARTY SU!vfMONS Issued as to Third Party Defendant
Ilybrinetics, Inc. (mjc,) (Entered: 07/19/2006)
1 - - - - - - - + - - - - + - - - - - = - , , • • , e , s o , - • • •. • • • • • - - - - - - - • M m • • • , a , - , - • • • - - - - - - - - - - - 1
07/18/2006 i,)39 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A, Gu:;:man: MOTION by Defendant
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. for leave to file Third Party
Complaint for Contribution 32 is granted, Motion hearing held on 7/18/2006
regarding motion for leave to file32. Status hearing set for 8/8/2006 at 09:30
AM. Mailed notice (c,ig,) (Entered: 07/20/2006)
07/27/2006 1140 MOTION by Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. for
extension of time Agreed Motion (Burke, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
07/27/2006 (.)41 NOTICE oflv!otion by Robert Michael Burke for presentment of motion for
extension oftime40 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 8/1/2006 at
09:30 AM. (Burke, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
07/27/2006 i.>42 CERTIFICATE by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. Ce1tificate of
Service Agreed Motionfi1r F:nlargemenl of Time (Burke, Robert) (Entered:
07/27/2006)
,--------+----- -----------------------!
08/01/2006 i)43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of Service of Third Party Summons served on
Hybrinetics, Inc. on July 28, 2006, filed by Defendant The Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Company, L.L.C., Third Party Plaintiffs The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C., The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C .. (Burke, Robe1t)
(Entered: 08/01/2006)
08/01/2006 (,)44 NOTICE by The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., The Ritz-Carlton
Hotel Company, L.L.C., The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. re
acknowledgment of service, 43 (Burke, Robert) (Entered: 08/0 I /2006)
,-------+----+---------------------------!
08/04/2006 i.)45 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman : Motion for extension of
time40 is granted, Motion hearing held on 8/4/2006 regarding motion for
extension oftime40, Fact discovery extended to 10/23/06. Plaintiff's expert
reports by I 2/ 18/06. Defendant's expert reports by 3/5/07. Dispositive
motions due by 4/10/06. Status hearing reset for 10/25/2006 at 09:30 AM.
Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
08/16/2006 ~46 Third Party Def4endan1'.1· ANSWER to Third Party Complaint by
Hybrinctics, lnc.(J\ckerman, I,isa) (Enli;,red: 08/16/2006)
08/16/2006 (,)4 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Third Party Defendant Hybrinctics, Inc. by
Lisa Handler Ackerman (Ackerman, Lisa) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
08/16/2006 iJ!48 ATTORNEY Appearance for Third Party Defendants Hybrinetics, Inc. by
Charles W. Planck. (rp,) (Emcrcd: 08/18/2006)
~--------'-----'-------·
7 of9 11/14/2006 9:54 i\M

• U.S. District Court, Notthern Illinois No.
.. .lmps://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?J 26 of 29
11329885507467-L_923_0-l
IJ49 ATTORNEY Appeanmce for Third Party Defendants Hybrinetics, Inc. by

Kamilah Aminah Parker. (rp,) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
1------..-i----,.j.,
09/27/2006 50 Answer to 3rd Party PlaintiiTs Interrogatories by Hybrinetics, Inc. (Parker,
Kamilah) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
---···,,----,., ..,-.. " - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j
09/27/2006 .21 Response to 3rd Party Plaintiff's Request for Production by Hybrinetics, Inc.
(Parker, Kamilah) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
1------..-1-----1------
10/10/2006 i;)52 MOTION hy Third Party Defendant Hybrinetics, Inc. for extension ol'lime
Agreed Motionjbr an Enlargement of Time (Attachments:# _I_ Exhibit I# ;1_
Exhibit 2H J Exhibit 3# :l: Exhibit 4# ~ Exhibit 5# Q Exhibit 6)(Parker,
Kamilah) (Entered: I 0/10/2006)
10/10/2006 353 NOTICE of Motion by Kamilah Aminah Parker for presentment of motion
for extension or time52 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 10/l 7/2006
at 09:30 AM. (Parker, Kamilah) (Entered: 10/10/2006)
-.,_,,...,.........., .... _ . . , __ _ _1.,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.
10/12/2006 ()54 CROSSCLAIM by Dean M Toriumi against Hybrinetics, Inc .. (Roccanova,

Bernard) (Entered: I 0/12/2006)
I0/ 16/2006 Q55 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman: Motion for extension of
time for the deposition of Rick Rosa 52 is granted, Motions terminated:
MOTION by Third Party Defendant Hybrinetics, Inc. for extension of time
Agreed Motion for an Enlargement of"Time52. Mailed notice (cjg,)
(Entered: I 0/16/2006)
10/19/2006 Qs6 Iv!OT!ON by Plaintiff Dean M Toriumi for leave to file Cross-Claim Adding
Third Party Defendant, Hybrinetics, Inc., as a Direct D~fimdant
(Attachments: # I Exhibit A: Cross-Claimli 2 Notice of Filing Notice or
Motion)(Roccanova, Bernard) (Entered: I 0/19/2006)
>-----------1------l-------
10/24/2006 l)57 ATTORNEY Appearance for T11ird Party Defendants Hybrinetics, Inc.,
Hybrinctics, Inc., Cross Defondant Ilybrinetics, Inc. by Eric J. Ryan (Ryan,
Eric) (Entered: I 0/24/2006)
I 0/24/2006 *"*Attorney Eric J. Ryan for added. (imp,) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
----------a
I 0/25/2006 Q5g MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Gu;oman: Status hearing held on
10125/2006. Simultaneous briefs on the issue of which stale law applies are
to be filed on or before 11/15/06. Ruling to be by mail. Mailed notice (cjg,)
(Entered: 10/26/2006)
10/27/2006 1)59 MINUTE entry before Judge Ronald A. Guzman: Court's order of
10/25/2006 setting a brieling schedule on tl1e issue of which state law
applies is vacated. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order: The defendant's
motion to transfer venue l1 is granted. Tho clerk of the Court is \ltdered to
transfor this case to the Eastern District of Michigan. This case is terminated.
Any pending motions of schedules an: stricken as moot. Civil case
terminated. Mailed notice (gej,) (Entered: l 0131/2006)
,,,_.,,"""""'""·-·----------1
10/27/2006 Q60 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Ronald A. Guzman
011 I0/27/2006.(gej,) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
8 of9 11/14/2006 9:54 AM

- U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois No.
... https//ccf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?l 27 of 29
I I 329885507467-L_923 _0-1
11/14/2006 iJl6J TRANSFERRED to the USDC- Eastern District of Michigan the electronic
case filo, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet via certified mail
number 7006 0!00 000173124505. (gej,) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
9 of9 I 1/14/2006 9:54 AM

CIVIL COVER SHEET County in which thb action arose 9(:,l~

ii t:l)Vef sheet and the info~tfon cortta.incd herein neither rcp'-'ce nor .11qpplet1'1ent the filing and ,ervlc.c ofpltadingi; or other pape11 M required ro' law, except ss ~
,~ of court, Thi:t form. ,;tpproved by thC! Judicial Col'lferenc~ of the Unjled State., in September 1914, is n::q1.1imd for the use of the Clerk of Court for the:: purpose of mitiatlng
ii dO(:ket sheet (SF,E INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE f'ORM,}
PLAINTIFFS JlEFENDANTS
L)e:J\µ fV\ \ OQ. \ U-,1/\ \ lltrz.. ~ro...,
--,f:,-,A,i,,,,,
(b) County ofRo,ideoce of First Lisled Pi,indlf ~ U':l3!,:,t-,L County ofR~sidence ofFint Ustt:d Deferulant
(E)(CBPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFr CASES) (IN U,$, PLAJNTIFF C~llS ONLY)
NOTE; IN LAND CONDEMNATION C:A.~R'- I NF: TIJli' nr ~ .,..,rn,, '"'"' - ~
Case: 2:06-cv-15203
Assigned To: Borman, Paul D .
Referral Judge: Morgan, VirgInIa M
Filed 11-21-2006 At 03 08 PM
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (ei.., .. •x• hi o.. Boxool,l Ill. Cll '1l1ff
(f
OTEL CO (DA)
0 m--ou
1 U.S. Oovemmmt
P1ainliff
0 l F,d,nl QuOl1lon
(U.S, Govunmfflt Not a Party) Citittn iTma Stak 01 o•· Iru:mJt01111li!d (l1' Principal P1-l;l:
ofBuWH!:u fu Thi• Sl:lk
□ • l'.H
CJ 2 u.s, Oovnmtt'd.
Dtft!ad.uif
Citiun of Anodill!f Sflfe □ 2 Jw;:orporattd mid romiptl Placfl
ot l3•incd ha AtM;idter Sta
x □•
Q"'"- CJtizauhlp of Plrli« ht I""' Ill)
Citiztlt tr Sql;,FQ( of a □ 6 C) 6
F...J C
IV, NATURE OF SUIT O.XOIII
(J I JO"""'- P£1\SON,I.L 11'111/RY PERSONAL INJURY a ,10M'1-. □ 422A.,.,t 28 use ll& Cl 400S... R,1pp,,nl-
0 120Mlrinc O l10Airpllll0e CJ 362 f'¢f'5IOIW Li.jmy • 0 1120 0th« Food & Droi Cl 42:l Withdn.wal CJ 410 Aatilntd
0 IJO M~lor Art O 3U Aicplue Prodntt M«I. Mtl....,..• □ 625 Dnlg R.d.,b;,S,i>urc 21U8C U1 o ""10 Danb ..oakill8
CJ 140 Ncgodablt 1111~ LW>ility CJ 3M Pmoutia]ffl'y - of'PN~21 USCHl 0 4'0 C.M:liu,;'J'CC
□ i,o Rccovety of Ov~em a l20 AJHWt. Libd & Produ(.1: u.,l;,ility 0 (i30Llq_Ui'n'Ll,wa Cl460~
& EnfottmDen, of 1~1511: SI.Mdtr 0 )68 All,,"" l'Cn<>l>AI 0 6-l(JJLI!, /It T"'"'
□ 820 """"'""'
am....._.,._,..
0 151M~Act □ JJOfc:dcJIIEmplt;l)"Ww' l>JU<Y"""""" 0 6SO Aldhlo Rog,. 01'.JOP...., Carupt~
0 1n RC/:.()vcty uO:.>cfallltt:d l.i.t!ility LlahilloY a 6600«...- □ 310~,...,.m 0 410C-cw.tll
Studem: Loms J ◄O Marine l'EltSONA.LPROPEII.T\' sa1<1y111e~111 CJ490 Cohle/Sat TY
(E:.:1;11. v««w) 3 M~ Prodlld 0 J70 Oth«F"""' □ ~00 a ,10 s-.. s.m..
□ 11~ R~of()'Vl!lpayJQClll: ilit.y Cl :m T1"'h.inL~
17
0 IUO S-,tC.....,J!llu/
of Veto'm'J 9<Dctlti VQ~ n ,e:o Otltl:!r Pi::roo111a.1 0 7IOFairLtOOf'S~ □ 86IIHA (139ll!) 6"dlug,,
( 0 160 S ~ ~ • Sµita Vllhi1-ic! Property Ptlnagl!I' A« CJ i62 Bl~ Lq: (923) 0 .,,~.,.......
c.-
0 li(l<Jtl,., ~ □ 385 Prop<:;ity DI.Q\111ee 0 720 Labor/Mgmt. RcllltiOl'lli 0 86! l'.>IWCIPIWW (40l(Jo) lZUSC:,410
c~ 0
CJ l?S
01%F-i..o
Produtl Pm,x,_tl PflNl;utt llibili~ CJ 730 Lab«IMgmt.R~p()rtmg
,it Diaclo~ure Al,1c
Cl 864 SSII> Tille XV1
□ 16lRSI <O a,.,,.,._.._
i9001h<tS_OI)'_
0 740 P..,,lhny L11bor At:I a a,211,.,,.,..s-.....A"

0 2UJLand.CQ -441VtitmJ □ 1HlMQUOmtoVm;.atc CJ 790 Other L111but U~ption CJ a'N,1 Taxes (U.S. Plldntiff 0••3---
□ 2:WforecJ~ □ -H2 EQ!floymtut Scaw,oe 0 191 Elllpl R<t 1M. otlJefeT1Nnt) 0 894-,r Allocatloo""
D llO l\<ol lAs, & Ej_,.. 0 '4) H<llliio,;/ U.b<.o> Corpo,: Smirity Aet 0 171 IRS-'lllltd P,ny 0 m"""'"" <>fllll\,imaiioo
□ 2:40Tori.lfQIAnd AetOmlll~m □ no Osral l6USC7609 A<I
0 %45TortP~tLiabllhy 0 #IWoll'.l,, 0 l3H>,,"1Pro~ty CJ 900Appcal o(Fei: ~
0 29() AU Other Real Prop.my C] 44, A.mu. w/D~d.e!ii • Cl 540 Mmdamut & OtlM:r Uodcr EqlWA1,11,1¢11
llmplqym<ol □ lSO Civil Rl8h~ to JustiQe
□ 446 Amer, w/Di~jlitics - LI 5:55 Prisan. Conditiori. o •so c..........ia, ot
Otlu,r Sutb$t1:Ma
0 440 Olhtt Civil Ri,;hb
V. ORIGIN
nI Original
(Place an ''X"' in One Box Only)
O 2 Removed from C'I 3 Ronwidcd trom O 4R'
T)d~n1,Jl.-6 □ 7
aoolhet disn-ict O Multidislrlot
toc:ecdin lo A Reo if" I.i.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN CllijCK If llllS IS A CL\SS ACTION DEMANDS Cl!BCK YES only if
COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JORY DEMAND:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
D'ANY DOCKET NUMBRR
OAT!!
RECf:IPT #
---- AMOUN'r
------- APPi. '(ING IFJ> JUDGE MAG.JUDGE
PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 83.11

1. Is this a case that has been previously dismissed? 0 Yes
cErNo
If yes, give the following information:
Co u rt:
-------------------
Case No.: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Judge: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2. Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously

discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other OYes
court, including state court? (Companion cases are matters in which u2(No
it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the same
or related parties are present and the cases arise out of the same
transaction or occurrence.)
If yes, give the following information:
Court
-------------------
Case No.:
-----------------
Judge: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Notes:

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEAN TORIUMI,
Plaintiff(s), CASE NO: 06-15203
vs JUDGE PAUL D. BORMAN
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL CO., L.L.C,
Defendant(s).
____________________________________/
NOTICE OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
You are hereby scheduled to appear on: Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 3:15
p.m. (unless a plan is filed) in the Courtroom of the Honorable Paul D. Borman, 740,
U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette, Detroit, Michigan, for a scheduling conference on
the above case.
Plaintiff in the above entitled case is directed to convene a conference with

all counsel for the purpose of preparing a joint discovery plan in accordance with
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), and LR 5.1.1. If a joint discovery plan is agreed upon, it must be
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court prior to the scheduling conference.
IF A RULE 26(f) PLAN IS SUBMITTED, THIS CONFERENCE WILL BE

AUTOMATICALLY CANCELLED AND A SCHEDULING ORDER WILL BE ISSUED
BY THE COURT UPON RECEIPT OF THE DISCOVERY PLAN.
THE COURT STRONGLY DESIRES THE PARTIES TO FILE AN AGREED PLAN.
If the parties cannot agree, proposed plans are to be brought to the

conference, and counsel should be prepared to discuss the following:
1. A brief summary of the case and issues;

2. Subject matter jurisdiction;
3. Relationship, if any, to other cases;
4. Amount of time necessary for the discovery process – generally 6 to 9
months from the date of filing are allowed by the Court;
5. Necessity of amendments to pleadings, additional parties, third-party
complaints, expert testimony, et cetera;
6. Anticipated motions.
1
7. Use of Case Evaluation (see L. R. 16.3 re: sanctions) or other methods of

alternate dispute resolution. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING:
CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS: Counsel should complete and electronically file, where

appropriate, the Disclosure of Corporate Affiliations form.
CASE EVALUATION: If the parties consent to state Case Evaluation, the Consent to
Case Evaluation form must be electronically filed.
DISCOVERY: Counsel should commence the discovery process immediately and not
wait for receipt of the Scheduling Order. Parties are bound by Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2)
concerning depositions and Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a) limiting the number of
interrogatories.
PRETRIAL PRACTICES and FORMS:
Required forms and pretrial practices are available on Judge Borman’s website.
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/_practices/Borman/toc.htm
Copies of this Notice were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or
U.S. Mail on November 28, 2006.
s/Denise Goodine
Case Manager
2

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI, Case No. 2:06-CV-15203

Hon. Paul D. Borman
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, et al
Defendants.
I
APPEARANCE
PLEASE ENTER our appearance as attorneys for HYBRJNETICS, INC. in the above-
•
~ entitled cause of action.
,_w
w
s/Deborah A Lujan
",_w
z
w
COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL &
0
z ULANOFF, P.C.
~
,_0 DEBORAH A LUJAN (P46999)
0
0
Attorney for Hybrinetics, Inc.
0
• 4000 Town Center, Suite 909
0 Southfield, MI 48075-1473
•,: (248) 355-4141
"0z deborah. lujan @cejlawyers.com
<
J
0
: Dated: December 8, 2006
J
w
""<
•
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the clerk of the court
using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
•• Bernard Roccanova
J,
* Robert Michael Burke
~ Blake Ashton Barron
le\ Eydie Rachel Glassman
8 Mary Louise Kandyba
•:; Timothy R. Couture
0
Charles W. Planck
U: Kamilah Aminah Parker
"~ Lisa Handler Ackerman
,
0
w
And I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the
ffi following non-ECF participants - none.

,_
z
w
0
z
~
0 s/Deborah A Lujan
>-
0
0
COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF, PC
0
• DEBORAH A LUJAN (P46999)
0 Attorney for Hybrinetics, Inc.
•,: 4000 Town Center, Suite 909
"0 Southfield, MI 48075-1473
z
,<
J (248) 355-4141
•
J
J
deborah.lujan@ceflawyers.com
w
"~ Dated: December 8, 2006
"z
"0X
z
iii
"
z
:;
J
0
0

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Hon.PaulD.Borman
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE RITZ-CARL TON HOTEL COMPANY, et al
Defendants.
----------------'/
ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
At a session of said Court held on:

/-;,.- - I r - o '1
PRESENT: HON. PAUL D. BORMAN
\S,'sf.._ 1•d C..o~ Judge
Upon reading and filing of the attaehed Stipulation, and the Court being fully advised of the
premises;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Deborah A. Lujan and the law firm of Collins, Einhorn,
Farrell & Ulanoff, PC be substituted in the place of Charles W. Planek, Kamilah A. Parker, Lisa
Ackerman, and Eric J. Ryan and the law firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker,
LLP as attorney for HYBRINETICS, INC. in this action.
Court Judge
:" ,,•.-71 1·1
\i""' ~
u.s
l.//T\ t·
1
Bernard Roccanova
Blake Ashton Barron
Mary Louise Kandvba
Timothy R. Couture
Charles W. Planck
Kamilah Aminah Parker
following non-ECF participants - none.
s/Deborah A. Lujan
COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF, P.C.
4000 Town Center, Suite 909
Southfield, MI 48075-1473
(248) 355-4141
deborah.lujan@cejlawyers.com
Dated: December 8, 2006

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Hon. Paul D. Borman
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, et al
Defendants.
________________/
STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITU110N OF ATTORNEY
The firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP and Charles W. Planek,
Kamilah A. Parker, Lisa Ackerman, and Eric J. Ryan do hereby withdraw their Appearance(s)
previously filed on behalf ofHYBRINETICS, INC.
s/with consent of Kamilah A. Parker s/Deborah A. Lujan

Kamilah Aminah Parker COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL &
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, et al ULANOFF, P.C.
Attorney for Hybrinetics, Inc. DEBORAH A. LUJAN (P46999)
120 North LaSalle Street Substituted Attorney for Hybrinetics, Inc.
Suite 2600 4000 Town Center, Suite 909
Chicago, IL 60602 Southfield, MI 48075-14 73
312/704-0550 (248) 355-4141
kamilah.parker@wilsonelser.com deborah.lujan@cejlawyers.com
c· -e,
f-\,"..:a,\
Ii el
OEi: 1 1
( l
u '·.
[,\_,. •.•

SOUTHERN DIVISION
Dean M. Toriumi Case No. 2:06-CV-15203

Hon. Paul D. Borman
Plaintiff,
~ The Ritz Carlton Hotel

!:\
Company, LLC
0
•'
0
Defendant
•
0
J
w
"
C
~ The Ritz-Carlton Hotel
0
g Company, LLC
•
0
m Third Party Plaintiff,
"w
~ Hybrinetics, Inc.
0
z
~
a
Third Party Defendant.
0
0
0
" Dean M. Toriumi,
Cross Plaintiff
~ Hybrinetics, Inc.,
J
w
""< Cross-Defendant
C
z
"g Bernard Roccanove
~ Daley & Mohan, P.C.
~ Attorney for Plaintiff
:l0 ISON. WackerDrive#!SS0
° Chicago, IL 60606
~ rocc@daleymohan.com
~
~ 312/201-9368 (fax)
0
~
" Robert M. Burke
Johnson & Bell, LTD
Attorney for The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company
33 W. Monroe Street #2700
Chicago, IL 60603
Deborah Lujan P46990

4000 Town Center, Ste. 909
Southfield, MI 48075
248/3 5-4141
I
HYBRINETICS, INC.'s ANSWER TO CROSS-CLAIM/

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/RELIANCE UPON JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES Cross-Defendant, HYBRINETCIS, INC., through undersigned counsel,

•,_
0
•i which responds to the Complaint filed by Cross-Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, as follows:
D
J
w 1. In answering paragraph 1, Cross-Defendant admits that Hybrinetics, Inc. is
;;:
,_,
I
~ authorized to do business and is located in California. As to the remaining allegations, Cross-

m
~ Defendant nor denies the allegations contained therein for lack of sufficient knowledge or
,_w
•
ffi information and leaves Cross-Plaintiff to his proofs.
,_
z
w
0
z 2. In answering paragraph 2, Cross-Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations
3
,_0
g contained therein for lack of sufficient knowledge or information and leaves Cross-Plaintiff to his
0
•
o proofs.
•
3. In answering paragraph 3, Cross-Defendant states that this allegation does not
: pertain to this Cross-Defendant and, as such, no answer is required.

J
w
""<
C
4. In answering paragraph 4, Cross-Defendant states that the allegations contained
z
"~ therein are vague and ambiguous, however, Defendant does admit that they do sell and distribute
z
w
i voltage converters.
J
J
0
0
5. In answering paragraph 5, Cross-Defendant neither admits nor denies the allegations
•w
0
~ contained therein for lack of sufficient knowledge or information and leaves Cross-Plaintiff to his
0
3
<
J
proofs.
6. In answering paragraph 6, Cross-Defendant denies the allegations contained therein
as the same calls for a legal conclusion and leaves Cross-Plaintiff to his proofs.
contained therein for lack of sufficient knowledge or information and leaves Cross-Plaintiff to his
proofs.

"J,
~ contained therein for lack of sufficient knowledge or information and leaves Cross-Plaintiff to his
•"
~
proofs.
9. In answering paragraph 9, Cross-Defendant denies the allegations contained therein,

ci
g including subparagraphs a - d, contained therein for the reason that same are untrue.
,:
>-0
g 10. In answering paragraph 10, Cross-Defendant denies the allegations as to direct and
•
g proximate results and/or alleged omissions of Cross-Defendant, Hybernetics, Inc. As to the
,.w
w
ffi remaining allegations, Cross-Defendant nor denies the allegations contained therein for lack of
,.
z
w
z0 sufficient knowledge or information and leaves Cross-Plaintiff to his proofs.
~
0
>-
0
0
WHEREFORE, Cross-Defendant prays this Court enter a judgment of no cause for action
0
"
" on Cross-Plaintiffs Complaint and further award Cross-Defendant costs and attorneys fees so
•."
a
g wrongfully sustained.
<
J
0
•
J
s/Deborah A Lujan
J
w COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL &
""a< ULANOFF, P.C.
z DEBORAH A. LUJAN (P46999)
"0
I Attorney for Hybrinetics, Inc.
z
iii 4000 Town Center, Suite 909
,;
z Southfield, MI 48075-1473
3
J
0
(248) 355-4141
0
deborah lujan@ceflawyers.com
"w
~
••
i
J
SPECIAL AND/OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Cross-Defendant, HYBERNETICS, INC., by and through its attorneys, COLLINS,
EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF, P.C., and states that it will rely on and prove the
following Affirmative Defenses:
1. That cross-plaintiff failed to institute suit timely as determined by the applicable
Status of Limitations.
2. That the product described in cross-plaintiffs Complaint was neither designed,

0
~ manufactured, distributed, processed, changed or modified by your cross-defendant herein.
I
,>-
g 3. That in the event it is established that the product was in some way designed,
•~ changed, modified, manufactured or distributed by cross-defendant, then in that event cross-
w
>-
w
lli defendant will establish that the plaintiffs injuries were caused in whole or in part because of
>-
z
w
0
2
inability to make proper observations or if observations were made, that he failed to properly act
3
0
>-
g therein.
0
•
4. That the cross-plaintiff failed to take or make proper precautions for cross-
,:
g plaintiffs own safety, said acts or inactions being such as would totally eliminate and/or reduce
<
,
J
~ the damages, if any, to which the cross-plaintiff claims to be entitled.

J
w
""< 5. That the injuries complained of by the cross-plaintiff were brought about by
"z
"~ actions of persons other than your defendant herein and/or by one of the other non-party cross-
z
iii
i defendants herein and/or by persons yet unknown.
aJ
0
0
6. That in the event cross-plaintiff establishes that this cross-defendant changed or
w
w
0
~ modified or in any other way contributed to the design of the equipment identified in cross-
o
3
<
J plaintiffs Complaint then in that event defendant will establish that said equipment was altered,
changed or modified or in some other way made different from when said plug left the control
and custody of your cross-defendant herein.

7. That the plug as identified in cross-plaintiffs Complaint was misused and/or
abused by persons other than your cross-defendant herein.
8. That cross-plaintiffs claim for breach of express or implied warranties are barred
; by appropriate disclaimyrs as provided and are based on neither fact nor law .
,;,•
•" 9. That the claims by cross-plaintiff are this cross-defendant's first notice of the
•~
•
incident and this defendant thus reserves a right to file any and all other Affirmative Defenses
•'
0
~ that cross-defendant could not have been discovered at the tirne cross-defendant filed its Answer
:,
a"
~;;: herein.
,,_
I
2 10 . That in the event the subject product or equipment has been destroyed or altered,
•
~ cross-plaintiffs claim is barred by spoliation of evidence.
w
!;;
11. That cross-plaintiffs contributory negligence will act as a total bar from all
"w,_
z
w
~ nonecnomic damages, if it is greater than 50%.
~
,_
0
0
0
12. That intervening negligence on behalf of other parties other than this cross-
0
•
u defendant would be the direct and proximate cause of cross-plaintiffs damages.
"
13. That the cross-defendant hereby reserves the right to file such additional
~ Affirmative Defenses as may become known to cross-defendant upon completion of the

J
w
"~ discovery herein.
z
"0
I
s/Deborah A Lujan
z COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL &
ill
,; ULANOFF, P.C.
z
J
J DEBORAH A LUJAN (P46999)
0
u Attorney for Hybrinetics, Inc.
w 4000 Town Center, Suite 909
w
u
;;: Southfield, MI 48075-1473
•0
(248) 355-4141
~
J deborah.lujan @ceflawyers.com

RELIANCE UPON JURY DEMAND
NOW COMES Cross-Defendant, HYBERNETICS, INC., by and through its attorneys,
COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF, P.C and hereby relies upon the Jury Demand
filed by Cross-Plaintiff
s/Deborah A Lujan
COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL &
ULANOFF, P C.
DEBORAH A LUJAN (P46999)
(248) 355-4141
deborah.lujan@cejl.awyers.com
m
0
•
~ Dated: December 13, 2006
"we
z
w
0
z
~
0
e
0
0
0
•
Bernard Roccanova
Blake Ashton Barron
~ Mary Louise Kandyba
•~ Timothy R. Couture
0
~ And I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the
"I
",g following non-ECF participants - none.
•
0
•w
"w s/Deborah A Lujan
COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF, PC.
"w
"wz DEBORAH A LUJAN (P46999)
0
z Attorney for Hybrinetics, Inc.
~
0 4000 Town Center, Suite 909
"
0
0
0
" (248) 355-4141

0 deborah.lujan@ceflawyers.com
"
""~ Dated: December 13, 2006
<
,
J
•
J
J
w
""<
"z
"0I
z
iii
"z
J
J
0
0

SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 2:06-cv-15203

Hon. Paul D. Borman
THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL
COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMPANY, LLC,
vs.
HYBRINETICS, INC.,
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Cross-Plaintiff,
vs.
HYBRINETICS, INC.,
Cross-Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________/
MARY LOUISE KANDYBA ROBERT M. BURKE
BERNARD ROCCANOVE Johnson & Bell, LTD
Daley & Mohan, P.C. Counsel for The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company
Counsel for Plaintiff 33 W. Monroe Street #2700
150 N. Wacker Drive #1550 Chicago, Illinois 60603
DEBORAH LUJAN (P46990) MARY C. O’DONNELL (P33479)

Counsel for Hybrinetics, Inc. Durkin, McDonnell, Clifton & O’Donnell, P.C.
4000 Town Center, Suite 909 Local Counsel for Plaintiff
Southfield, Michigan 48075 645 Griswold Street, Suite 3253
Detroit, Michigan 48226
_____________________________________________________________________________/
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
TO: All Counsel Of Record:
Please take notice that we have this day entered our appearance as local counsel for
plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi.
DURKIN, McDONNELL, CLIFTON

& O’DONNELL, P.C.
DATED: December 14, 2006 s/ Mary C. O’Donnell

Durkin, McDonnell, Clifton & O’Donnell
645 Griswold, Ste. 3253
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 963-3033
modonnell@durkinmcdonnell.com
P33479
I, MARY C. O’DONNELL, declare under penalty of perjury, that on the date shown
below, Notice of Appearance was electronically filed with the Court and Counsel of Record. I
declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information.
DATED: December 14, 2006 s/ Mary C. O’Donnell

Durkin, McDonnell, Clifton & O’Donnell
645 Griswold, Ste. 3253
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 963-3033
modonnell@durkinmcdonnell.com
P33479

SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEAN TORIUMI,
Plaintiff, Case No: 06-15203
-vs- HON.: PAUL D. BORMAN
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL, CO., LLC,
Defendant.
_________________________________________
-vs-
HYBRINETICS, INC,
Third-Party Defendant
__________________________________________________________________________/
BERNARD ROCCANOVA LEONARD A. HENK (P26651)
Daley & Mohan, PC Kallas & Henk PC
Attorney for Plaintiff Co-Counsel for Defendant/Third Party
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1550 Plaintiff Ritz Carlton
Chicago, ILL 60606 43902 Woodward Ave. Suite 200
(312) 422-9999 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
(248) 335-5450 ext. 202
KAMILAH A. PARKER
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP ROBERT BURKE
Attorney for Third Party Defendant Hybrinetics Johnson & Bell, Ltd
120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 Attorney for Defendant/Third Party
Chicago, ILL 60602 Plaintiff Ritz Carlton
(312) 704-0550 33 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, ILL 60604
DEBORAH A. LUJAN
Collins, Einhorn, Farrell & Ulanoff
Co-Counsel for Third Party Defendant Hybrinetics
__________________________________________________________________________/
APPEARANCE
TO: Clerk of the Court

All Counsel
Please enter my appearance as co-counsel for Defendant, The Ritz Carlton Hotel Co, LLC.
Kallas & Henk PC
s/Leonard A. Henk
LEONARD A. HENK (P26651)
Attorney for Defendant/Third Party
Plaintiff Ritz Carlton
lhenk@kallashenk.com
43902 Woodward Ave., Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
(248) 335-5450, Ext. 202
2
I hereby certify that on December 20, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk
of the Court using the ECF system which will send the notification of such filing to the following ECF
participant: Appearance and Certificate of Service
Bernard Roccanova Robert Burke

Daley & Mohan, PC Johnson & Bell, Ltd
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1550 33 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, ILL 60606 Chicago, ILL 60604
Kamilah A. Parker Deborah A. Lujan

Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker Collins, Einhorn, Farrell & Ulanoff
120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2600 4000 Town Center, Suite 909
Chicago, ILL 60602 Southfield, MI 48075
s/Leonard A. Henk
LEONARD A. HENK (P26651)
Attorney for Defendant /Third Party
43902 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
(248) 335-5450, Ext. 202
Lhenk@kallashenk.com
3
3
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Hon. Paul D. Borman
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE RITZ-CARL TON HOTEL COMPANY, ct al
Defendants.
- - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , __!
ORDER F'OR SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
At a session of said Court held on:

lciJ,./10/0"'
PRESENT: HON.
f/1uL ,J. BORMAN
(J_,S - ti; ,-f ~ ,d Court J~dge
Upon reading and filing of the attached Stipulation, and the Court being fully advised of the
premises;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Deborah A. Lqjan and the law fim1 or Collins, Einhmn,
Farrell & Ulanoff, PC be substituted in lhe place of Charles W. Planek, Kamilah A. Parker, Lisa
Ackerman, and Eric J. Ryan and the law !inn of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker,
LLP as allomey for HYBRINETICS, INC. in this action.
14
Court Judge
•

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Hon. P~;ul D.:;p,pr!llAA"'
~
Plaintiff, :.,:,; :''· •,: I, ,-_\
vs.
'•'•:\
.,
THE RITZ-CARL TON HOTEL COMPANY, et al ~ ••-~.i~
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
STIPULATION i<'OR SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
The firm of Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP and Charles W. Planek,
Kamifoh A. Parker, Lisa Ackerman, and Eric J. Ryan do hereby withdraw their Appcarancc(s)
prcvioll~ly filed on behal I' of HYBRINETICS, INC.
sfwith consent of Kan1ilah A. Parker s/Dcborah A. Lujan

Kamilah Aminah Parker COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL &
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, et al Ul.ANOFF, P.C.
Attorney for Hybrinetics, Inc. DEBORAH A. LUJAN (P46999)
120 North LaSalle Street Substituted Attorney for Hybrinetics, Inc.
Suite 2600 4000 Town Center, Suite 909
Chicago, IL 60602 Southfield, MI 4807 5-14 73
312/704-0550 (248) 355-4141
kamilah.parker@wilsonelser.com deborah.lujan@ceflawyers.com

I hereby ce1iify that I clec!ronically filed the foregoing paper with the clerk orth,:, court
Bernard Roccanova
Blake Ashton Hanon
Mary Louise Kandxba
Timothy R. Couture
Charles W. Planck
Ka111ilal1 Aminah Parker
following non-ECF participants - none.
s/Deborah A. Lujan
COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF, P.C.
AHorney for Hybrinetics, Inc.
Southfield, Ml 48075-1473
(248) 355-4141
dehorah.lujan@ceflawyers.com
MIE 300 Scheduling Order (Rev. 3/98)

SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEAN TORIUMI et al.,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-15203
Plaintiff(s),
HON. PAUL D. BORMAN
v.
PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO
THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL CO., LLC., et PROVIDE A HARD COPY OF ALL
al., MOTIONS, RESPONSES,
REPLIES AND EXHIBITS TO
CHAMBERS
Defendant(s).
/
SCHEDULING ORDER
The following dates constitute the Order of this Court.
1. Deadline for the identification of witnesses, both lay and expert: N/A
2. Closing date for all Discovery: Discovery to begin on 2/1/07 and conclude on
5/1/07.
3. Dispositive Motions due: 6/1/07
4. Case referred to Mediation: 5/1/07 if stipulation filed
5. Settlement Conference date and time: TO BE DETERMINED
6. Deadline for filing Joint Pretrial Order: TO BE DETERMINED
7. Final Pretrial Conference date and time: TO BE DETERMINED
8. Jury Trial set for: TO BE DETERMINED
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 12, 2007

Copies of this Order were served on the plaintiff and attorneys of record by electronic
means or U.S. Mail on January 12, 2007.
s/Denise Goodine
Case Manager
A review of the pleadings in this case suggest that a preliminary pretrial conference
is unnecessary and that time limits for discovery, submission of dispositive motions, the
final pretrial conference and trial can be set without the necessity of such a conference.
* ALL FILINGS MUST CONFORM TO LOCAL RULE 5.1., AS TO SIZE OF

PRINT, NUMBER OF PAGES, ETC. (PAGE LIMITS WILL BE STRICTLY
ENFORCED.)
THE RULES OF CIVILITY APPLY OUT OF COURT AS WELL AS IN

PLEADINGS AND IN COURT.
MOTION PRACTICE
I. When filing dispositive or partially dispositive motions, parties shall proceed in

accordance with the following:
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE FILED WITH THE

COURT UNTIL DISCOVERY HAS BEEN COMPLETED, ABSENT SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE SPECIFIED IN ANY PREMATURE MOTION.
A. Before filing a motion for summary judgment or responding to such a

motion, the parties are urged to familiarize themselves with Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242
(1986), and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574 (1986). An excellent summary of these cases appears in Street v. J.C.
Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1989).
B. ERISA Actions - In ERISA actions seeking recovery of benefits, the parties

shall file cross motions for entry of judgment either seeking reversal of the
plan administrator’s decision to deny the plan participant’s claim, or seeking
affirmation of the plan administrator’s decision to deny plan participant’s
claim. See Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc., 150 F.3d 509 (6th Cir.
1998); Eriksen v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 39 F. Supp.2d 864 (E.D. Mich.
1999).
C. Facts stated in the statement of material facts must be supported with

citations to either the pleadings, interrogatories, admissions, depositions,
affidavits, or documentary exhibits. The full text of any source cited should
be filed with the Court as an appendix; the relevant portion should be
highlighted or underlined. The appendix shall contain an index.
D. Counsel are discouraged from employing elaborate boilerplate recitations of
the summary judgment standard or lengthy string citations in support of
well established legal principles. Instead, counsel should focus their analysis
on a few well chosen cases, preferably recent and from controlling courts.
Counsel are encouraged to supply the Court with copies of their main cases,
with the relevant passages highlighted and tabbed. Where unpublished
opinions or opinions published only in a specialty reporter are cited, copies
of the cases must be submitted along with the brief to both the Court and
opposition counsel.
II. Attorneys who do not respond to motions in a timely fashion may not be permitted
oral argument.
III. A Joint Final Pretrial Order shall be furnished to the Court in every civil case one
week before the time set for the final pretrial conference.
A. Counsel for all parties are directed to confer in person (face to face) at their
earliest convenience in order to (1) reach any possible stipulations narrowing
the issues of law and fact, (2) deal with non-stipulated issues in the manner
stated in this paragraph and (3) exchange documents that will be offered in
evidence at the trial. It shall be the duty of counsel for plaintiff to initiate
that meeting and the duty of other counsel to respond to plaintiff's counsel
and to offer their full cooperation and assistance. If, after reasonable effort,
any party cannot obtain the cooperation of other counsel, it shall be his or
her duty to communicate with the Court. Counsel shall meet sufficiently in
advance of the date of the scheduled Conference with the Court so that each
party can furnish other counsel with a statement of the specific issues the
party will offer evidence to support, eliminating any issues about which there
is no real controversy, and including in such statement issues of law as well
as ultimate issues of fact from the standpoint of each party. Counsel for
plaintiff then will prepare a draft final pretrial order and submit it to
opposing counsel, after which all counsel will jointly submit1 the original and
one copy of the final draft of the proposed pretrial order to the Judge's
chambers on the date fixed for submission. If there are any pending motions
requiring determination in advance of trial,2 they should specifically be
called to the Court's attention not later than the date of submission of the
final pretrial order.
The final pretrial order should provide for the signature of the Court, which,
when signed, will become an Order of the Court. AN ORIGINAL AND ONE
COPY IS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE COURT.
1
Counsel for plaintiff has primary responsibility for preparation of the final pretrial order
and, in that respect, for its submission to opposing counsel in ample time for revision and timely
filing. Nonetheless, full cooperation and assistance of all other counsel are required for proper
preparation of the final pretrial order.
2
This includes motions in limine, disputes over specific jury instructions or the
admissibility of any evidence at trial upon which the parties desire to present authorities and
argument to the Court.
The proposed pretrial order shall strictly comply with the provisions and
requirements of Local Rule 16.2, except as this Court may otherwise provide.
B. The Attorneys will familiarize themselves with the pretrial rules and will
come to the conference with full authority to accomplish the purposes of Rule
16 (including simplifying the issues, expediting the trial and saving expense
to litigants). Counsel shall be prepared to discuss compromise settlement
possibilities at the conference without the necessity of obtaining confirmatory
authorization from their clients. Parties themselves must attend the final
pretrial conference unless the Court has agreed to other arrangements prior
to the date of the conference.
Motions in limine must be filed one (1) month prior to trial.
LOCAL RULE 16.2
Counsel for plaintiffs shall convene a conference for all parties to collaborate in
formulating a concise Joint Final Pretrial Order that is to be compiled by counsel for
plaintiffs, approved and signed by counsel for all parties, and submitted by counsel for
plaintiffs to the Court for approval and adoption. The Order shall provide for the
signature of the Court and, when signed and filed in the Clerk's office, becomes an Order
of the Court, superseding the pleadings and governing the court of trial unless modified by
further Order, provided, however, that the pretrial order shall not constitute a vehicle for
adding claims or defenses. An original and one copy is to be submitted to the chambers of
the assigned Judge. The Order will not be filed in the Clerk's office until it has been signed
by the Judge.
(b) Contents of Order.
The Joint Final Pretrial Order shall contain, under numbered and captioned
headings, the following:
(1) Jurisdiction. The Parties shall state the basis for federal court jurisdiction,
and whether jurisdiction is contested by any parties.
(2) Plaintiffs' Claims. A statement of the claim or claims of plaintiffs, including

legal theories.
(3) Defendants' Claims. A statement of the defenses or claims of defendants or

third parties, including legal theories.
(4) Stipulation of facts. The parties shall state, in separately numbered

paragraphs, all uncontested facts.
(5) Issues of fact to be litigated.
(6) Issues of law to be litigated.
(7) Evidence problems likely to arise at trial. Include objections to exhibits. All
motions in limine of which counsel should reasonably be aware shall be listed in the
Joint Final Pretrial Order.
(8) Witnesses. Each party shall list the names of all witnesses, identifying which
are experts, that it will call (in the absence of reasonable notice to the contrary to
opposing counsel), and those witnesses it may call. No witness shall be listed who
has not been included on any witness list submitted pursuant to a prior order of the
Court. Only listed witnesses will be permitted to testify at trial, except for rebuttal
witnesses whose testimony could not be reasonably anticipated before trial, or
except for good cause shown.
(9) Depositions. The parties shall list the names of all witnesses whose
deposition testimony is reasonably expected to be offered as evidence. Nothing in
this subsection shall preclude the taking of de bene esse depositions for use at trial.
(10) Exhibits. The parties shall number and list, with a short identifying
description, each exhibit they intend to introduce at trial. Only listed exhibits will
be considered for admission at trial, except for rebuttal exhibits that could not be
reasonably anticipated before trial, or except for good cause shown.
(11) Trial Exhibits. Trial exhibits are to be numbered, Plaintiff beginning with
100, Defendant beginning with 500. Counsel, not the Court, are responsible for
keeping their exhibits during trial. An additional copy of all exhibits will be
required for use on the bench and one copy for the Court Reporter. All exhibits will
be received prior to trial, except those where an objection is noted. With reference
to those exhibits, they will be received during trial at the proper time. Counsel are
to mark the exhibits with exhibit stickers, which may be obtained from the court
reporter. Exhibits are not to be highlighted, underlined, or marked in any way
(except with exhibit stickers) by counsel or any party. When the jurors commence
their deliberations, counsel are to have all of their respective exhibits in the
courtroom and in sequential order, so that at the request of the jurors they may
immediately be sent into the jury room.
(12) Damages. Plaintiffs shall itemize all claimed damages, shall specify damages
that can be calculated from objective data, and the parties shall stipulate to those
damages that are not in dispute.
(13) Trial.
(A) Jury or non-jury.
(B) Estimated length of trial.
(14) Settlement. Counsel shall state that they have conferred and considered the
possibility of settlement, giving the most recent place and date thereof, and indicate
the current status of negotiations, as well as any plans for further discussions.
(c) Failure of Counsel to Cooperate.
Failure of counsel to cooperate in the preparation of, to submit, or to strictly comply

with the terms of, the Joint Final Pretrial Order may result in dismissal of claims, default
judgment, refusal to let witnesses testify or to admit exhibits, assessment of costs and
expenses, including attorney fees, or other appropriate sanctions.
(d) Filing of Trial Briefs, Findings and Instructions.

THE JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER SHALL FURTHER PROVIDE THAT
MOTIONS IN LIMINE SHALL BE FILED ONE MONTH PRIOR TO THE DAY OF
THE TRIAL. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
SHALL BE FILED ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL. ONE SET OF JOINT JURY
INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE FILED ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL.
(e) Additional Requirements.
The Judge, in an appropriate case, may add additional requirements to the Joint
Final Pretrial Order, or may suspend application of the Rule in whole or in part.
TRIAL PRACTICE
1. At least ONE WEEK prior to beginning of trial term all counsel shall furnish to the
court requests for VOIR DIRE.
2. In jury cases, the parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer prior to trial to
discuss jury instructions. No later than the first day of trial, the parties are to file
with the court a single set of proposed, stipulated jury instructions. Counsel are
responsible for all instructions related to their specific claims or defenses. All such
instructions are to be typewritten, double spaced, on plain white paper with no
letterhead and shall contain references to authority (e.g., "Devitt and Blackmar,
Section 11.08"). Counsel shall also provide a separate set of instructions without
references of authority. In addition, each party shall separately file any additional
proposed instructions to which any other party objects. The parties must make a
concerted, good faith effort to narrow the areas of dispute and to discuss each
instruction with a view to reaching agreement as to an acceptable form.
3. In non-jury cases, proposed FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

shall be filed prior to the beginning of the trial.
4. A statement of claims or defenses, no longer than one paragraph, suitable to be read

to the jury during opening instructions shall be filed prior to the beginning of the
trial.
#3!172 P.002 /004
Case
JAN.11.2007 2:06-cv-15203-PDB-VMM
17:5B ECF No. 10, PageID.58 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 2

EASTERN DISTRlCT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiff,
VS. Case No. 2:06~cv-15203

Hon.PaulD.Borman
THE RlTZ CARLTON HOTEL
COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant. ORDERNUNCPROTUNC
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO FILE CROSS-
CLAIM
COMPANY, LLC,
VS.
HYBRINETICS, INC.,
DEAN M. TORTUMI,
Cross-Plaintiff,
vs.
HYBRINBTTCS, INC.,
Cross-Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -ROBERT
MARYLOUISE.KANDYBA
--~ - - - - - - - - - - -I
M. BURKE
BERNARDROCCANOVE Johnson & Bell, LTD
Daley & Mohan, P.C. Counsel for The Ritz Carlton Hotel Company
Counsel for Plaintiff 33 W. Monroe Street #2700
150 N. Wacker Drive #1550 Chicago, 111inois 60603
JAN.11.2007 17:5B #3472 P.003 /004
DEBORAH LUJAN (P46990) MARY C. O'DONNELL (P33479)

Co-Counsel for Third Party Defendant Durkin, McDonnell, Clifton & O'Donnell, p_c_
Hybrinetics, Inc. Local Counsel for Plaintiff
4000 Town Center, Suite 909 645 Griswold Street, Suite 3253
Southfield, Michigan 48075 Detroit, Michigan 48226
LEONARD A_ HENK (P26651)

Kallas & Henk PC
Co-Counsel for Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff
Ritz Carlton
43902 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'I
ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC GRANTING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE CROSS-CLAIM
This cause coming to be heard for status, and the court being advised in the premises, the
plaintiff having requested entry of an Order granting him leave to file his Cross-Claim against
Hybrinetics, hlc., nunc pro tune to the date of the motion previously filed in the Northern District
of Illjnois, where this case was previously pending, it being agreed between the parties.
It is hereby order that plaintiff is granted leave to file its Cross-Claim against Hybrinetics,
fuc. nunc pro tune to December 13, 2006.
District Court Judge

Case
MIED 2:06-cv-15203-PDB-VMM
(Rev. 9/04) Notice of Correction ECF No. 11, PageID.60 Filed 01/12/07 Page 1 of 1

DEAN TORIUMI,
Plaintiff(s), CASE NO. 06-15203
v. JUDGE BORMAN
THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL CO.,

LLC.,
Defendant(s).
/
NOTICE OF CORRECTION
Docket entry number 10, entered on 1/12/07, was corrected. The explanation for
the correction is stated below.
The docket entry was made on the wrong case.

The corresponding document image was missing or incomplete.
X The wrong document image was associated.
The wrong judicial officer was listed on the case docket.
The filer information was inaccurate or omitted from the docket text.
The judicial officer information was inaccurate or omitted from the docket text.
The docket text was changed (specify what was changed and why)
Other:
No further action is required. If you need further clarification or assistance, please
contact Denise Goodine at 313-234-5122.
DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT
By s/ Denise Goodine
Deputy Clerk
Date: 1/12/07

SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEAN TORIUMI,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-15203
Plaintiff,
HON. PAUL D. BORMAN
V.
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL CO.,

etc., et al.
Defendant.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
The undersigned hereby enters her appearance as Attorney for the Plaintiff, Dean
M. Toriumi, in this cause.
The undersigned certifies that she is a member of the Bar of this Court.
Isl Mary Louise Kandyba

Daley & Mohan, P.C.
150 North Michigan Avenue
Snite 1550
Chicago, IL 60606
312-422-9999
Illinois Bar No. 06180752

SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEAN TORIUMI,
Plaintiff, Case No: 06-15203
-vs- HON.: PAUL D. BORMAN
Defendant.
_________________________________________
-vs-
HYBRINETICS, INC,
Third-Party Defendant
__________________________________________________________________________/
BERNARD ROCCANOVA LEONARD A. HENK (P26651)
MARY LOUISE KANDYBA Kallas & Henk PC
Daley & Mohan, PC Co-Counsel for Defendant/Third Party
Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiff Ritz Carlton
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1550 43902 Woodward Ave. Suite 200
Chicago, ILL 60606 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
(312) 422-9999 (248) 335-5450 ext. 202
DEBORAH A. LUJAN
Collins, Einhorn, Farrell & Ulanoff
Co-Counsel for Third Party Defendant Hybrinetics
__________________________________________________________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
At a session of said Court held in the Courthouse, in the

City of Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan
March 14, 2007.
PRESENT: HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Based upon the agreement of the parties;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case, including all claims, cross-claims, counter-claims
and third-party claims of any and all parties, is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, but without costs,
interest and attorney fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this is a final order and closes this file.
I Stipulate to the Entry of This Order:
s\Bernard Roccanova S/PAUL D. BORMAN

BERNARD ROCCANOVA UNITED STATES DIST COURT JUDGE
MARY LOUISE KANDYBA
s/Leonard A. Henk s/Deborah A. Lujan

LEONARD A. HENK (P26651) DEBORAH A. LUJAN
Co-Counsel for Def/Third Party Co-Counsel for Third Party Def Hybrinetics

DR Dean Toriumi's Disability 01/14/2004 - Present

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

DR Dean Toriumi's Disability 01/14/2004 - Present

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DR Dean Toriumi's Disability 01/14/2004 - Present

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2006-L-000289 (Cook County), 1:06-cv-01720 (USDC-IL), 2:06-cv-15203 (USDC-MI) – disability of Dean M.

Timeline of Dean M. Toriumi’s unstable neurological condition, decline in cognitive abilities

10 Years Post 19 Years Post

Dean M. Toriumi, MD’s professional disability, January 14th, 2004 – present i

Dean M. Toriumi, MD’s professional disability, January 14th, 2004 – present ii

The risk of death in the hands of resident/fellow increases from

The risk of reoperation after being operated by a resident/fellow, increases from

Dean M. Toriumi, MD’s professional disability, January 14th, 2004 – present iv

Medical Malpractice Lawsuits against Toriumi

Case Number Plaintiff Vs Defendant

Before 01/14/04 Electrocution of Toriumi (~14 years timespan)

After 01/14/04 Electrocution of Toriumi (~19 years timespan)

Traffic accident in 2017 – reckless driving, delayed reaction

Moving and Non-Moving Traffic Violations

Offense Citation Statute Degree Offense Date

Disp Regis Plate/Decal/1ST,2ND Y3273515 625 ILCS 5/3-413 P 5/9/1993

Dean M. Toriumi, MD’s professional disability, January 14th, 2004 – present v

ESPANOL & 866.600.CARE

Advanced Search by Gender, Language, or Location

Mark H. Gonzalez, MD, PhD

Request an Appointment Refer a Patient

GET TO KNOW OUR PROVIDER

Language : English, Spanish

SPECIALTIES & SERVICES

Peripheral Nerve Surgery

Hip and Knee Replacement

Outpatient Care Center, Suite 2A

• UIC College of Medicine

Elmwood Park, Illinois, United States

Clinical Associate Professor of MedicineClinical Associate Professor of Medicine

▪ Research in and treatment of narcolepsy

Associate Professor of NeurologyAssociate Professor of Neurology

▪ General neurology; Teaching of residents and students; Basic research in

Northwestern University - The Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern University -

▪ MD/PhD ProgramMD/PhD Program

Northwestern UniversityNorthwestern University

Northwestern University - The Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern University - The

MD/PhD ProgramMD/PhD Program

Northwestern UniversityNorthwestern University

Northwestern UniversityNorthwestern University

DEAN TORIUMI, MD -vs- RITZ CARLTON

R . C(;-;/‘fa'x Hd{gl (om‘m»\z

Jury Demand Qe DN«

027 Motor Vehicle

Pediatric Lead Exposure

061 Other Personal Injury/Wrongful Déathu 072 Consumer Fraud

078 Fen-phew/Redux Litigation (Please Specify Below**)

062_PROPERTY DAMAGE Q 077 LIBEL/SLANDER -

O OTHER ACT] IONS

M. TORIUMI, by and thmuglgns

made apd acquired, all to Plaintiff’s damage.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, prays for judgment against

Defendant, THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C, a foreign limited

plus costs of this action.

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.LAC‘,_]vieminaﬁer “THE RITZ?, states as follows:

and Michigan, among others.

a resident of Cook County, Illinois.