Hearing Date: 10/16/2024 9:30 AM 12-Person Jury

Location: Court Room 2008

Judge: Calendar, 9
FILED
6/18/2024 3:28 PM
IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

2024CH05712
Calendar, 9
28167209
Chancery Division Civil Cover Sheet
General Chancery Section (12/01/20) CCCH 0623

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

Rockwell Rowe Jr. and Michele Rowe, et. al.

Plaintiff
v. Case No: 
2024CH05712
Skyway Concession Company LLC, et. al.
Defendant

CHANCERY DIVISION CIVIL COVER SHEET

GENERAL CHANCERY SECTION
A Chancery Division Civil Cover Sheet - General Chancery Section shall be filed with the initial complaint in all actions filed in the General
Chancery Section of Chancery Division. The information contained herein is for administrative purposes only. Please check the box in
front of the appropriate category which best characterizes your action being filed.
Only one (1) case type may be checked with this cover sheet.
0005 Administrative Review 0017 Mandamus
0001 ✔ Class Action 0018 Ne Exeat
0002 Declaratory Judgment 0019 Partition
0004 Injunction 0020 Quiet Title
0021 Quo Warranto
0007 General Chancery 0022 Redemption Rights
0010 Accounting 0023 Reformation of a Contract
0011 Arbitration 0024 Rescission of a Contract
0012 Certiorari 0025 Specific Performance
0013 Dissolution of Corporation 0026 Trust Construction
0014 Dissolution of Partnership 0050 Internet Take Down Action (Compromising Images)
0015 Equitable Lien
0016 Interpleader Other (specify) ____________________________

91198
Atty. No.: ________________ Pro Se 99500
Pro Se Only: I have read and agree to the terms of the Clerk’s
Atty Name: Kenneth T. Goldstein Clerk’s Office Electronic Notice Policy and
choose to opt in to electronic notice from the
Atty. for: Rockwell Rowe Jr. and Michele Rowe Clerk’s office for this case at this email address:
Address: 20 N Wacker Dr. Suite 1006
Email: 
Chicago
City: ____________________________ IL
State: ____
60606
Zip: ________
3126060500
Telephone: ________________________

Primary Email: ken@krislovlaw.com

Iris Y. Martinez, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
cookcountyclerkofcourt.org
Page 1 of 1
 System Generated Hearing Date: 10/16/2024 9:30 AM FILED
Location: Court Room 2008 6/18/2024 3:28 PM
Judge: Calendar, 9 IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 2024CH05712
Calendar, 9
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

Rockwell Rowe Jr., and Michele Rowe )

on behalf of themselves, and all )
others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) No.: 2024CH05712
)
Skyway Concession Company LLC, )
Calumet Concession Partners Inc., )
Atlas Arteria, and Ontario Teachers’ ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Pension Plan )
)
Defendants. )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Rockwell Rowe Jr., and Plaintiff Michele Rowe (the “Plaintiffs”), on

behalf of themselves and all other drivers who paid a toll above the maximum toll level on the

Chicago Skyway beginning in 2019 through the present bring this action against Defendant,

Skyway Concession Company LLC; Defendant, Calumet Concession Partners Inc.; Defendant,

Atlas Arteria Limited; and Defendant Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, (“Defendants”), as a Class

Action for: Count I, violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (“ICFA”) and Uniform Deceptive

Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”) as a deceptive act; Count II, violating the ICFA and UDTPA as

an unfair practice; Count III, Breach of Contract, and; Count IV, Unjust Enrichment, to recover

damages against Defendants for charging toll amounts above the maximum allowable toll levels

between 2019 through the present.

2. These claims are based on the Defendants violation of the Chicago Skyway

1
 Concession and Lease Agreement (the “Concession Agreement”) 1 by deceptively charging

motorists toll rates above the maximum toll levels authorized by the Concessionaire Agreement
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Rockwell Rowe Jr. is a resident of Cook County, Illinois who drove on

the Chicago Skyway in 2023 and 2024.

4. Plaintiff Michele Rowe is a resident of Cook County, Illinois who drove on the

Chicago Skyway in 2023 and 2024. The Rowes share an “I-Pass” account with their vehicles

listed to it, identifying each Skyway charge.

5. Defendant, Skyway Concession Company LLC, is the Concessionaire of the

Chicago Skyway, incorporated in Delaware, and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

6. Defendant, Calumet Concession Partners Inc., holds a 100% indirect equity

interest in Defendant Skyway Concession Company LLC and is incorporated in Delaware.

7. Defendant, Atlas Arteria, a dual stapled vehicle consisting of Atlas Arteria

Limited and Atlas Arteria International Limited, owns a majority interest in Defendant Calumet

Concession Partners Inc. and is headquartered at Level 1, 180 Flinders Street Melbourne, VIC

3000 Australia.

8. Defendant Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan owns the remaining 33.33% equity

interest and shareholder loan notes in Defendant Calumet Concession Partners Inc., and is

incorporated in Ontario and headquartered at 160 Front Street West, Suite 3200 Toronto, Ontario

M5J 0G4 Canada.

1
The relevant provisions of the Concession Agreement are cited within the Complaint, Schedule 6 is attached as
Exhibit A, and the 462 page Concession Agreement is publicly available online at
https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/fin/supp_info/public_private_partnerships/asset_lease_agreements.html.

2
 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to735
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

ILCS 5/2-209 because the Defendants: transact business in this state; committed a tortious act

within this state; own, use, or possess real estate within this state; and have made or performed a

contract in this state.

10. Venue is proper in the Circuit Court of Cook County because the underlying

transactions occurred in this county; and the Defendants transact business in this county.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. The City of Chicago Sells the Chicago Skyway. In January 2005, the City of

Chicago, (the “City”), transferred control of the Chicago Skyway to the Defendant Skyway

Concession Company LLC, for 99 years, under an agreement titled “Chicago Skyway

Concession And Lease Agreement Dated As Of [__] [__], 2004 By And Between The City of

Chicago and [Concessionaire]”.2

12. The current ownership structure for Defendant Skyway Concession Company

LLC is outlined by the following chart3:

2
City of Chicago, “Authorization for Execution of Concession and Lease Agreement for Operation of Chicago
Skyway Toll Bridge System”,
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/fin/supp_info/AssetLeaseAgreements/Skyway/Skyway_Ordinance.
pdf (accessed May 10, 2023).
3
Atlas Arteria, “Tolling Structure”, https://www.atlasarteria.com/portfolio/chicago-skyway (accessed May 10,
2024).

3
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

13. ALX. In the ownership chart ALX represents Defendant Atlas Arteria.

14. ATLAX. In the ownership chart ATLAX represents Atlas Arteria Limited, an

Australian public company that is incorporated in Australia and headquartered in Melbourne,

Australia.

15. ATLAS ARTERIA HOLDINGS AUSTRAILIA PTY LTD. Atlas Arteria

Holdings Australia Pty Ltd, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Atlas Arteria Limited, holds a

66.67% equity interest in Defendant Calumet Concession Partners Inc., is incorporated in

Australia and headquartered in Melbourne, Australia.

16. ATLIX. In the ownership chart ATLIX represents Atlas Arteria International

Limited, an exempted mutual fund company that is incorporated in Bermuda and headquartered

in Hamilton, Bermuda.

17. GREEN BERMUDIAN HOLDINGS. Green Bermudian Holdings, is a wholly

owned subsidiary of Defendant Atlas Arteria International Limited and holds 66.67% of total

shareholder loan notes issued by Defendant Calumet Concession Partners Inc.

18. OTPP. In the ownership chart OTPP represents Defendant Ontario Teachers’

4
 Pension Plan which owns the remaining 33.33% equity interest and shareholder loan notes in

Defendant Calumet Concession Partners Inc., is incorporated in Ontario and headquartered in

FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

Toronto, Canada.

19. The City Grants the Concessionaire Right to All Toll Revenue. Under the

Concession Agreement, the City transfers to the Concessionaire the exclusive right to “toll the

Skyway”, granting the Concessionaire all revenue produced from the tolls. Concession

Agreement, Section 2.1.

20. Toll Increases Are Not Reviewed or Approved by the City. Under the

Concession Agreement, the City is not required to consent or approve any increase in tolls so

long as the increase complies with Schedule 6 of the Concession Agreement:

Section 7.1 Tolling Regulation. The Concessionaire shall comply with the
provisions of the Tolling Regulation set forth in Schedule 6. For the avoidance of
doubt, no consent or approval of the City shall be required for any increase or
other change in tolls that falls withing the toll levels specified in that Schedule 6.
Concession Agreement, Section 7.1.

21. Schedule 6 Section 3 Sets Forth the Maximum Toll Levels Each Year of the

Concession Agreement. The exact toll increase for each year between 2005 and 2017 are

specified by Schedule 6 Section 3(a), and under the terms of the Schedule 6, the maximum toll

level for use of the Skyway Toll Bridge in 2017 were:

Vehicle Toll Class Maximum Toll Level

Two-axles $5.00
Three-axles $12.60
Four-axles $16.80
Five-axles $21.00
Six-axles $25.20
Seven-axles or more $29.40

Concession Agreement, Schedule 6, Section 3(a)(vii).

22. Beginning January 1, 2018, the maximum toll level increased annually on January

5
 1 by the greater of the increase in (1) nominal US GDP per capita growth; (2) US CPI growth; or

(3) a floor of 2%:

FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

Section 3. Tolling Level Requirements.

(b) Maximum Toll Level Adjustments After January 1, 2017. After

January 1, 2017, the maximum toll level applicable to Skyway Toll Bridge
users for use of the Skyway Toll Bridge in each direction for each vehicle
toll class shall increase each one (1) year anniversary of January 1, 2017
until the End Date, by the greater of:

(i) the increase, if any, in the amount of the maximum toll

level for the vehicle toll class for the immediately
preceding toll-level period on account of such amount
being Adjusted for Inflation for the period between the
initial date and the end date of such preceding toll-level
period;
(ii) the increase, if any, in the amount of the maximum toll
level for the vehicle toll class for the immediately
preceding toll-level period on account of such amount
being Adjusted for Per Capita G.D.P. Increase for the
period between the initial date and the end date of such
preceding toll-level period; and
(iii) the increase in the amount of the maximum toll level for
the vehicle toll class for the immediately preceding toll-
level period on account of such amount being at an annual
rate of two percent (2%) for the period between the initial
date and the end date of such preceding toll-level period.
Concession Agreement, Schedule 6, Section 3(b).

23. Under the Concession Agreement, Section 1.1, Adjusted for Inflation and

Adjusted for Per Capita GDP Increase are defined terms that mean the percentage increase in the

Index and the Per Capita Nominal GDP during the applicable adjustment period, respectively.

24. Index is further defined as the Consumer Price Index – U.S. City Averages for all

Urban Consumers, All Items (not seasonally adjusted) produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics. Concession Agreement, Section 1.1.

25. Per Capita Nominal GDP is further defined as the U.S. Annual Per Capita Gross

Domestic Product (in current dollars)(not seasonally adjusted) as published by the Bureau of

6
 Economic Analysis for the calendar year immediately preceding such specific point in time is to

be used. Concession Agreement, Section 1.1.

FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

26. Defendants use macroeconomic data from two years prior when calculating the

maximum toll levels4:

27. The Defendants may make the toll increase calculation any time after the data

necessary for the calculation is available to the public so long as the Defendants meet the notice

requirements:

Section 2. Notices.

(d) Timing of Certain Calculations. Any calculation to be made pursuant

to Sections 3(a)(iii), 3(a)(iv), 3(a)(v), 3(a)(vi) and 3(a)(vii) of this Schedule 6 and
clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 3(b) of this Schedule 6 may be made at any time
after the data necessary to make such calculation has been released to the public,
and any change in tolls dependent upon such calculation shall be subject to notice
being given under this Section 2 of this Schedule 6 following such calculation.
Concession Agreement, Schedule 6, Section 2(d).

28. The Defendants Must Provide Notice of Any Toll Increase. The

Concessionaire must give the City no later than ninety (90) days notice and the public not earlier

than sixty (60) days notice of the any toll increase:

Section 2. Notices.

4
Supra n. 3.

7
 (a) Notice of Pending Toll Changes. If the Concessionaire desires to change any
toll (including increases or decreases in any toll or different methods of
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

charging tolls), it shall give notice of such change (a “Pending Toll Change”):
(i) to the City no later than ninety (90) days prior to the
implementation of such change and;
(ii) to the public in accordance with Section 2(b) of this Schedule 6
beginning but not earlier than, sixty (60) days prior to the
implementation of such change. Concession Agreement, Schedule
6, Section 2(a).
29. The Bureau of Economic Analysis’ and Bureau of Labor Statistics’

macroeconomic data necessary to make the toll increase calculations are released to the public

each month beginning the January of the year immediately preceding the toll increase, thus, the

Defendants may take the highest macroeconomic data released during any month between

January and October the year before a toll increase and still provide the public sixty (60) days

notice to the public of the pending increase before January 1.

30. When the Bureau of Economic Analysis releases its data every month, the

Defendants use “Table 7.1 Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and

Chained Dollars” to calculate the U.S. Annual Per Capita Gross Domestic Product (in current

dollars)(not seasonally adjusted).5

31. The table below displays the greatest possible increase in (1) U.S. Annual Per

Capita Gross Domestic Product in current dollars not seasonally adjusted; (2) U.S. Consumer

Price Index – U.S. City Averages for all Urban Consumers, All Items; or (3) 2%, beginning with

2018, the first year that Defendants used the macroeconomic data to calculate the maximum toll

level:

5
Atlas Arteria, “2023 Results Presentation for twelve months ending 31 December 2023”, Appendix B, pg. 50.
https://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/ALX/02779037.pdf .

8
 Increase in Per
Year of Toll Capita Nominal Increase in U.S.
Increase of Flat 2%
Increase U.S. GDP with 2 CPI with 2 year lag
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

year lag

2018 2.2%6 2.1% 2.0%

2019 3.4%7 2.1% 2.0%

2020 4.8%8 1.9% 2.0%

2021 3.6%9 2.3% 2.0%

2022 -2.6% 1.4% 2.0%

6
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table 7.1 Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and
Chained Dollars”, Third Estimates for 2017 Q1 (published on June 29, 2017)
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.bea.gov%2FHistDataCore%2Fwwwroot
%2FReleases%2FGDP_and_PI%2F2017%2FQ1%2FThird_June-29-
2017%2FSection7all_xls.xls&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.
7
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table 7.1 Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and
Chained Dollars”, Third Estimates for 2018 Q2 (published on September 28, 2018)
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.bea.gov%2FHistDataCore%2Fwwwroot
%2FReleases%2FGDP_and_PI%2F2018%2FQ2%2FThird_September-28-
2018%2FSection7all_xls.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.
8
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table 7.1 Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and
Chained Dollars”, Third Estimates for 2019 Q2 (published on September 27, 2019)
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.bea.gov%2FHistDataCore%2Fwwwroot
%2FReleases%2FGDP_and_PI%2F2019%2FQ2%2FThird_September-27-
2019%2FSection7all_xls.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.
9
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table 7.1 Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and
Chained Dollars”, Third Estimates for 2020 Q1 (published on June 26, 2020)
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.bea.gov%2FHistDataCore%2Fwwwroot
%2FReleases%2FGDP_and_PI%2F2020%2FQ1%2FThird_June-26-
2020%2FSection7all_xls.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.

9
 2023 10.6%10 7.0% 2.0%
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

2024 8.8%11 6.5% 2.0%

10
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table 7.1 Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and
Chained Dollars”, Third Estimates for 2022 Q2 (published on September 30, 2022)
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.bea.gov%2FHistDataCore%2Fwwwroot
%2FReleases%2FGDP_and_PI%2F2022%2FQ2%2FThird_September-30-
2022%2FSection7all_xls.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.
11
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Table 7.1 Selected Per Capita Product and Income Series in Current and
Chained Dollars”, Second Estimates for 2023 Q2 (published on August 31, 2023)
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fapps.bea.gov%2FHistDataCore%2Fwwwroot
%2FReleases%2FGDP_and_PI%2F2023%2FQ2%2FSecond_August-31-
2023%2FSection7all_xls.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK.

10
 32. However, the Defendants used macroeconomic data that was consistently higher

than the macroeconomic data the Defendants were allowed to use under the terms of the contract
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023, and 202412:

33. Schedule 6 Section 3(e) Allows Defendants to Round the Maximum Toll

Levels to the Greatest $0.10, But Does Not Allow Defendants to Use the Rounded Up Toll

Levels to Calculate Future Maximum Toll Levels. Under Schedule 6, Section 3(e), the

maximum toll level authorized pursuant to Section 3(b) is rounded up to “an amount equal to the

next greatest tenth of a dollar denomination,” but the Concessionaire is prohibited from including

the increase from rounding up in prior years when calculating the maximum toll level going

forward:

Section 3. Tolling Level Requirements.

12
Supra n. 5, pg. 51

11
 (e) Rounding Of Certain Maximum Toll Levels. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary herein, to the extent a maximum toll level authorized pursuant to
Sections 3(a), 3(b), or 3(d) of this Schedule 6 is not an amount equal to a tenth of
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

a dollar denomination, such maximum toll level shall be increased to an amount

equal to the next greatest tenth of a dollar denomination; provided, however, that
any calculation made pursuant to Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of this Schedule 6 shall
be made as if any such increase had not occurred. Concessionaire Agreement,
Schedule 6, Section 3(e).

34. Accordingly, the formula for determining the maximum toll level for any year

after 2017 is:

Maximum Toll Level From Prior Year Excluding Rounding + (Maximum Toll Level
From Prior Year Excluding Rounding x Greater Increase of (i) Per Capita GDP; (ii) US
CPI; or (iii) 2%) = New Maximum Toll Level

35. Schedule 6 Section 3(d) Permits the Defendants Charge Heavy Vehicles a

Price Premium During Peak Travel Times. Under Schedule 6 Section 3(d), the Defendants

may charge heavy vehicles, vehicles with three-axles or more, a forty percent (40%) premium

above the maximum toll level during the hours of 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.:

Section 3. Tolling Level Requirements.

(d) Certain Exception To Maximum Toll Levels For Time-Of-Day Variable Rate
Tolling. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, each maximum toll
level set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of this Schedule 6 applicable to vehicles
with three (3) or greater axles shall be increased by forty percent (40%) of the
amount thereof (the amount of such forty percent (40%) increase hereinafter
referred to as the “Incremental Amount” if, during the time such maximum toll
level is operative, the Concessionaire has in effect a daily program that grants
vehicles with three (3) or more axles a toll reduction equal to the Incremental
Amount for travel during the hours of 8:00 P.M. (Chicago time) to the following
4:00 A.M. (Chicago Time) when compared to the toll amount the Concessionaire
charges the same vehicles for travel during the hours of 4:00 A.M. (Chicago time)
to 8:00 P.M. (Chicago time); provided, however, that any calculation made
pursuant to Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of this Schedule 6 shall be made as if any such
increase in the maximum toll level permitted by this Section 3(d) of this Schedule
6 had not occurred. Concessionaire Agreement, Schedule 6, Section 3(d).

36. The Defendants Charged Tolls Above the Authorized Maximum Toll Levels

for Vehicles with Two-Axles in 2023 and 2024. In violation of Schedule 6 Section 3(b), the

12
 Defendants charged $6.60 and $7.20 per toll in 2023 and 2024, respectively, which is $0.10

higher than the maximum toll level authorized for each of those year as demonstrated by the
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

table below13:

Proper Toll
Maximum
Increase Two-Axles Toll
Allowed Toll
Year Calculation Charged by the
Level Under
Pursuant to Defendants
Schedule 6
Schedule 6

$5.00 + ($5.00 x
2018 $5.20 $5.20
2.2%) = $5.11

$5.11 + ($5.11 x
2019 $5.30 $5.30
3.4%) = $5.28

$5.28 + ($5.28 x
2020 $5.60 $5.60
4.8%) = $5.53

$5.53 + ($5.53 x
2021 $5.80 $5.80
3.6%) = $5.73

$5.73 + ($5.73 x
2022 $5.90 $5.90
2%) = $5.84

13
When making all calculations Plaintiff used the greater the increase in (1) U.S. CPI; (2) nominal U.S. GDP per
capita; or (3) 2%, to calculate the toll increase for each year beginning in 2018. Further, for 2017, Plaintiff used the
maximum toll levels set by the Concessionaire Agreement under Section 3(a)(vii).

13
 $5.84 + ($5.84 x
2023 $6.50 $6.60
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

10.6%) = $6.46

$6.46 + ($6.46 x
2024 $7.10 $7.20
8.8%) = $7.03

37. The Defendants Charged Tolls Above the Authorized Maximum Toll Levels

for Vehicles with Three-Axles in 2020 through 2024. In violation of Schedule 6 Section 3(b),

the Defendants charged, (i) $14.10/$19.70 in 2020; (ii) $14.60/$20.40 in 2021; (iii)

$14.90/$20.90 in 2022; (iv) $16.50/$23.10 in 2023; and (v) $18.20/$25.40 in 2024 per toll which

ranges from $0.10 to $0.50 higher than the maximum toll level authorized for each year as

demonstrated by the table below:

Proper Toll
Maximum
Increase Three-Axles Toll
Allowed Toll
Year Calculation Charged by the
Level Under
Pursuant to Defendants
Schedule 6
Schedule 6
$12.60 + ($12.60
x 2.2%) = $12.88
2018 $12.90/$18.10 $12.90/$18.10
$12.86 + ($12.86
x 40%) = $18.03
$12.88 + ($12.88
x 3.4%) = $13.32
2019 $13.40/$18.70 $13.40/$18.70
$13.32 + ($13.32
x 40%) = $18.65
$13.32 + ($13.32
x 4.8%) = $13.96
2020 $14.00/$19.60 $14.10/$19.70
$13.96 + ($13.96
x 40%) = $19.54

14
 $13.96 + ($13.96
x 3.6%) = $14.46
2021 $14.50/$20.30 $14.60/$20.40
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

$14.46 + ($14.46
x 40%) = $20.24
$14.46 + ($14.46
x 2.0%) = $14.75
2022 $14.80/$20.70 $14.90/$20.90
$14.75 + ($14.75
x 40%) = $20.65
$14.75 + ($14.75
x 10.6%) =
$16.31
2023 $16.40/$22.90 $16.50/$23.10
$16.31 + ($16.31
x 40%) = $22.83
$16.31 + ($16.31
x 8.8%) = $17.75
2024 $17.80/$24.90 $18.20/$25.40
$17.75 + ($17.75
x 40%) = $24.85

38. The Defendants Charged Tolls Above the Authorized Maximum Toll Levels

for Vehicles With Four-Axles in 2019 through 2024. In violation of Schedule 6 Section 3(b),

the Defendants charged, (i) $25.00 in 2019; (ii) $18.80/$26.30 in 2020; (iii) $19.50/$27.20 in

2021; (iv) $19.90/$27.80 in 2022; (v) $22.00/$30.80 in 2023; and (vi) $24.20/$33.90 in 2024 per

toll, which ranges from $0.10 to $0.70 higher than the maximum toll level authorized between

2019 and 2024:

Proper Toll
Maximum
Increase Four-Axles Toll
Allowed Toll
Year Calculation Charged by the
Level Under
Pursuant to Defendants
Schedule 6
Schedule 6
$16.80 + ($16.80
x 2.2%) = $17.17
2018 $17.20/$24.10 $17.20/$24.10
$17.17 + ($17.17
x 40%) = $24.04

15
 $17.17 + ($17.17
x 3.4%) = $17.75
2019 $17.80/$24.90 $17.80/$25.00
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

$17.75 + ($17.75
x 40%) = $24.85
$17.75 + ($17.75
x 4.8%) = $18.60
2020 $18.60/$26.10 $18.80/$26.30
$18.60 + ($18.60
x 40%) = $26.04
$18.60 + ($18.60
x 3.6%) = $19.27
2021 $19.30/$27.00 $19.50/$27.20
$19.27 + ($19.27
x 40%) = $26.98
$19.27 + ($19.27
x 2.0%) = $19.66
2022 $19.70/$27.60 $19.90/$27.80
$19.66 + ($19.66
x 40%) = $27.52
$19.66 + ($19.66
x 10.6%) =
$21.74
2023 $21.80/$30.50 $22.00/$30.80
$21.72 + ($21.72
x 40%) = $30.44
$21.74 + ($21.74
x 8.8%) = $23.65
2024 $23.70/$33.20 $24.20/$33.90
$23.65 + ($23.65
x 40%) = $33.11

39. The Defendants Charged Tolls Above the Authorized Maximum Toll Levels

for Vehicles With Five-Axles in 2019 through 2024. In violation of Schedule 6 Section 3(b),

the Defendants charged, (i) $22.30/$31.20 in 2019; (ii) $23.40/$32.80 in 2020; (iii)

$24.30/$34.00 in 2021; (iv) $24.80/$34.70 in 2022; (v) $27.50/$38.50 in 2023; and (vi)

$30.30/$42.30 in 2024, which ranges from $0.10 to $0.80 higher than the maximum toll level

authorized for each of those year as demonstrated by the table below:

16
 Proper Toll
Maximum
Increase Five-Axles Toll
Allowed Toll
Year Calculation Charged by the
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

Level Under
Pursuant to Defendants
Schedule 6
Schedule 6
$21.00 + ($21.00
x 2.2%) = $21.46
2018 $21.50/$30.10 $21.50/$30.10
$21.46 + ($21.46
x 40%) = $30.04
$21.46 + ($21.46
x 3.4%) = $22.19
2019 $22.20/$31.10 $22.30/$31.20
$22.19 + ($22.19
x 40%) = $31.06
$22.19 + ($22.19
x 4.8%) = $23.26
2020 $23.30/$32.60 $23.40/$32.80
$23.26 + ($23.26
x 40%) = $32.56
$23.26 + ($23.26
x 3.6%) = $24.10
2021 $24.10/$33.80 $24.30/$34.00
$24.10 + ($24.10
x 40%) = $33.74
$24.10 + ($24.10
x 2.0%) = $24.58
2022 $24.60/$34.50 $24.80/$34.70
$24.58 + ($24.58
x 40%) = $34.41
$24.58 + ($24.58
x 10.6%) =
$27.19
2023 $27.20/$38.10 $27.50/$38.50
$27.19 + ($27.19
x 40%) = $38.07
$27.19 + ($27.19
x 8.8%) = $29.58
2024 $29.60/$41.50 $30.30/$42.30
$29.58 + ($29.58
x 40%) = $41.41

40. The Defendants Charged Tolls Above the Authorized Maximum Toll Levels

17
 for Vehicles With Six-Axles in 2019 through 2024. In violation of Schedule 6 Section 3(b), the

Defendants charged, (i) $37.40 in 2019; (ii) $28.10/$39.40 in 2020; (iii) $29.30/$40.80 in 2021;
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

(iv) $29.80/$41.70 in 2022; (v) $33.00/$41.70 in 2023; and (vi) $36.30/$50.80 in 2024, which

ranges from $0.10 to $1.10 higher than the maximum toll level authorized for each of those year

as demonstrated by the table below:

Proper Toll
Maximum
Increase Six-Axles Toll
Allowed Toll
Year Calculation Charged by the
Level Under
Pursuant to Defendants
Schedule 6
Schedule 6
$25.20 + ($25.20
x 2.2%) = $25.75
2018 $25.80/$36.10 $36.10/$25.80
$25.75 + ($25.75
x 40%) = $36.05
$25.75 + ($25.75
x 3.4%) = $26.63
2019 $26.70/$37.30 $26.70/$37.40
$26.63 + ($26.63
x 40%) = $37.28
$26.63 + ($26.63
x 4.8%) = $27.91
2020 $28.00/$39.10 $28.10/$39.40
$27.91 + ($27.91
x 40%) = $39.07
$27.91 + ($27.91
x 3.6%) = $28.91
2021 $29.00/$40.50 $29.30/$40.80
$28.91 + ($28.91
x 40%) = $40.47
$28.91 + ($28.91
x 2.0%) = $29.49
2022 $29.50/$41.30 $29.80/$41.70
$29.49 + ($29.49
x 40%) = $41.29

18
 $29.49 + ($29.49
x 10.6%) =
$32.62
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

2023 $32.70/$45.70 $33.00/$46.20

$32.62 + ($32.62
x 40%) = $45.67
$32.62 + ($32.62
x 8.8%) = $35.49
2024 $35.50/$49.70 $36.30/$50.80
$35.49 + ($35.49
x 40%) = $49.69

41. The Defendants Charged Tolls Above the Authorized Maximum Toll Levels

for Vehicles With Seven-Axles or More in 2019 Through 2024. In violation of Schedule 6

Section 3(b), the Defendants charged, (i) $31.20/$43.70 in 2019; (ii) $32.80/$45.90 in 2020; (iii)

$34.00/$47.60 in 2021; (iv) $34.70/$48.60 in 2022; (v) $38.50/$53.90 in 2023; and (vi)

$42.30/$59.20 in 2024, which ranges from $0.10 to $1.20 higher than the maximum toll level

authorized for each year between 2019 and 2024:

Proper Toll
Maximum Seven-Axles or
Increase
Allowed Toll More Toll
Year Calculation
Level Under Charged by the
Pursuant to
Schedule 6 Defendants
Schedule 6
$29.40 + ($29.40
x 2.2%) = $30.05
2018 $30.10/$42.10 $30.10/$42.10
$30.05 + ($30.05
x 40%) = $42.07
$30.05 + ($30.05
x 3.4%) = $31.07
2019 $31.10/$43.50 $31.20/$43.70
$31.07 + ($31.07
x 40%) = $43.50
$31.07 + ($31.07
x 4.8%) = $32.56
2020 $32.60/$45.60 $32.80/$45.90
$32.56 + ($32.56
x 40%) = $45.58

19
 $32.56 + ($32.56
x 3.6%) = $33.73
2021 $33.80/$47.30 $34.00/$47.60
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

$33.73 + ($33.73
x 40%) = $47.22
$33.73 + ($33.73
x 2.0%) = $34.40
2022 $34.40/$48.20 $34.70/$48.60
$34.40 + ($34.40
x 40%) = $48.16
$34.40 + ($34.40
x 10.6%) =
$38.05
2023 $38.10/$53.30 $38.50/$53.90
$38.05 + ($38.05
x 40%) = $53.27
$38.05 + ($38.05
x 8.8%) = $41.40
2024 $41.40/$58.00 $42.30/$59.20
$41.40 + ($41.40
x 40%) = $57.96

42. Defendants overcharged the Rowe Plaintiffs approximately 150 times between

2023 and 2024 as shown by Exhibit B.14

43. While traffic numbers are available for each year that the Defendants overcharged

drivers in 2019 through the 1Q of 2024, indicating that the Defendants collected approximately

$3,060,600 in overcharges through March 2024, the precise amount of overcharges based on the

exact number of drivers in each vehicle classes for each year can only be determined by

reviewing the Defendants’ records.

Class Action Allegations

44. Plaintiffs for themselves and the class, repeat and reallege the facts and allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 above, as if fully set forth herein.

14
All personal identifying information was redacted from Exhibit B and SCC under “Agency” refers to Defendant
Skyway Concession Company, LLC.

20
 45. This action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Illinois Code of Civil

Procedure 735 ILCS § 2-801.

FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

46. Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves and as a representative members for a

class defined as:

All persons and entities that paid a toll on the Chicago Skyway Toll Bridge above
the maximum toll levels set by the Concession Agreement in 2019, 2020, 2021,
2022, 2023 and 2024.

47. Numerosity. The proposed class is so numerous that the individual joinder of all

members is impracticable. While the exact number and identities of the class members are

unknown to Plaintiff at this time, the Defendants collected approximately $3,060,600 from

million trips between 2019 and March 2024. During the class period, drivers made over 20

million trips on the Chicago Skyway.

48. Existence of Common Questions of Law and Fact. Questions of law or fact exist

that arise from the Defendants’ actions; such questions are common to all class members and

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class including:

a. whether the Defendants charged tolls in excess of the maximum toll level
during the relevant period;

b. whether the Defendants have been unjustly enriched by unlawfully collecting

tolls above the maximum toll levels from vehicle owners;

c. whether Plaintiffs and class members have suffered damages; and

d. whether Plaintiffs and class members are entitled to equitable relief.

49. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and

pursue the interests of the Class members. Plaintiffs understand the nature of the claims herein,

has no disqualifying interests, and will vigorously represent the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs’

counsel, Kenneth T. Goldstein and the law firm of Krislov & Associates, Ltd., additionally have

21
 vast complex litigation, tort, consumer class action and litigation experience.

50. Appropriateness of a Class Action. Class litigation is an appropriate method for

FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims involved. Questions of law and/or fact are

common to the class, and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,

such that a class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication.

51. The rights of class members to be charged tolls in accordance with the

Concessionaire Agreement is common to the entire class.

52. The Defendants actions to incorrectly charge drivers tolls above the maximum toll

levels authorized by the Concessionaire Agreement apply generally to the class.

53. Further, the mischarging of tolls amounted to only $0.10 to $1.20 per toll

depending upon the year and vehicle class and the claims are too small and too numerous to be

economically pursued on an individual basis.

54. Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of separate actions by

individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying standards of

enforcing the Concessionaire Agreement.

55. Most class members who were wrongly overcharged will be identifiable by the

Defendants’ records corresponding to toll charges, such that the Defendants’ records will

identify the exact number of drivers in each vehicle class for every year and the identity of class

members charged excessive tolls. Additionally, class members vehicles will be identified by the

Defendants records.

COUNT I
Violation of the Consumer Fraud Act 815 ILCS 505/2 (Deceptive Act)

56. Plaintiffs for themselves and the class, repeat and reallege the facts and allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 55 above, as if fully set forth herein.

22
 57. At all relevant times, there was in full force and effect in Illinois the Consumer

Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. (“Consumer Fraud Act”).

FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

58. Under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, any

unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce is actionable. (815 ILCS

505/1, et seq.). The statute expressly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts including concealment of

any material fact.

59. Section 2 of the Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 provides in pertinent part:

Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including

but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense,
false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of
any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression
or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice
described in Section 2 of the “Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act”, approved
August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared
unlawful whether any person has in fact been mislead, deceived or damaged
thereby. In construing this section consideration shall be given to the
interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to
Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

60. The Act expressly incorporates violations of the Uniform Deceptive Trade

Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1, et seq., (“Uniform Act”), and the Uniform Act provides at

Section 2, 815 ILCS 510/2, in pertinent part:

Section 2. A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course

of his business, vocation or occupation, he: ...

(12) engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood

of confusion or of misunderstanding.

61. In order to prevail in an action under the Consumer Fraud Act, a plaintiff need not

prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.

62. This Section does not affect unfair trade practices otherwise actionable at

common law or under other statutes of this State.

23
 63. Section 10(a) of the Consumer Fraud Act, states, in pertinent part:

(a) Any person who suffers damage as a result of a violation of this Act
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

committed by any other person may bring an action against such person. The
court, in its discretion may award actual damages or any other relief which the
court deems proper. Proof of public injury, a pattern, or an effect on consumers
generally shall not be required...

(c) Except as provided in subsection (f), (g), and (h) of this Section, in any
action brought by a person under this Section, the Court may grant injunctive
relief provided in this Section, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the
prevailing party. (Emphasis added).

64. Plaintiffs are consumers under the Consumer Fraud Act, and the Defendants are

businesses under the Consumer Fraud Act.

A Deceptive Act or Practice.

65. The Defendants’ conduct to (i) deceptively calculate the maximum toll levels

from 2019 through 2024; (ii) misrepresent the maximum toll levels authorized in 2019 through

2024 on its website and road signs; (iii) conceal the actual toll levels authorized between 2019

and 2024; and (iv) charge drivers maximum toll levels that they knew violated the Concession

Agreement, violates the Consumer Fraud Act as a material deceptive act or practice.

Intent on the Defendants’ Part that the Plaintiffs Rely on the Deception.

66. The Defendants concealed material information from the Plaintiff and the Class.

67. The Defendants are not required to seek consent or approval from the City for toll

increases, do not make their toll increase calculations publicly available, are in the best position

to accurately charge drivers tolls that comply with Schedule 6 of the Concession Agreement, and

intend for Plaintiffs, class members, and the City to rely on accurately calculating toll increases.

Occurred in Trade and Commerce.

68. The Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, occurred in trade and

commerce and caused actual damages to Plaintiffs and members of the class.

24
 Actual Damages.

69. Plaintiffs and the class were actually damaged by the Defendants charging toll
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

rates above the maximum authorized toll.

70. Defendants overcharged Plaintiffs approximately 150 times between 2023 and

2024 as shown by Exhibit B.

Proximate Cause.

71. The Defendants miscalculation proximately caused the damages because but for

the Defendants calculations, Plaintiffs’ damages, paying excess tolls, would not have occurred or

continue. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ damages are a foreseeable result of the Defendants’

miscalculations.

COUNT II
Violation of the Consumer Fraud Act 815 ILCS 505/2 (Unfair Practice)

72. Plaintiffs for themselves and the class, repeat and reallege the facts and allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 71 above, as if fully set forth herein.

73. At all relevant times, there was in full force and effect in Consumer Fraud Act that

prohibits unfair practices in addition to deceptive acts.

An Unfair Act or Practice.

74. Defendants scheme to charge drivers tolls above the maximum toll levels

authorized by the Concession Agreement is also unfair.

75. The Defendants’ violation of the Concession Agreement, by charging drivers tolls

above the authorized maximum toll level, violates the well-established public policy that parties

uphold their obligations under a contract or lease agreement.

76. Further, the Defendants’ practice is unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous

because the Defendants violated the Concession Agreement for its own profit at the expense of

25
 the Plaintiffs and class members.

77. The Defendants’ practice caused substantial injury because the Defendants’
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

conduct began in 2019 and caused approximately $3,060,600 in damages through March 2024.

78. Finally, the Defendants’ conduct is unfair because it violates public policy, is

immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous causing substantial injury to the motorists who

have little alternative except to submit to it.

COUNT III
Breach of Contract

79. Plaintiffs for themselves and the class, repeat and reallege the facts and

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 55 above, as if fully set forth herein.

80. Plaintiffs and all other Skyway users are the intended beneficiaries of the limits on

toll increases found in Schedule 6 of the Concession Agreement.

81. The Concession Agreement specifically requires that the Defendants give the

public sixty (60) days notice of pending toll increases on a public website. Concession

Agreement, Schedule 6, Section 2(a) and 2(b).

82. Schedule 6 Section 3(b) conditions the amount the Defendants may increase tolls

each year upon three variables, thus, limiting the amount that the Defendants may increase tolls

each year which only benefits drivers. Concession Agreement, Schedule 6, Section 3(b).

83. Further, Sections 3(d) and 3(e) prohibit the Defendants from including the

increase in the toll levels from the price premium or rounding to the nearest $0.10 when

calculating the next year’s toll increase further benefiting drivers. Concession Agreement,

Schedule 6, Section 3(d) and 3(e).

84. In violation Schedule 6 Section 3’s provisions intended for the benefit drivers, the

Defendants charged drivers tolls above the maximum toll level beginning in 2019 through the

26
 present.

85. Plaintiffs and the class paid the Defendants an additional $0.10 to $1.20 per toll
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

depending upon the year and vehicle class because the Defendants breached the Concession

Agreement.

COUNT IV
Unjust Enrichment

86. Plaintiffs for themselves and the class, repeat and reallege the facts and allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 85 above, as if fully set forth herein.

87. The Defendants have unjustly overcharged Plaintiffs and other class members tolls

from 2019 through 2024 to their detriment (i) by failing to adhere to Schedule 6 Section 3 of the

Concession Agreement; and (ii) violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

88. The Defendants’ retention of the benefits violates the fundamental principles of

justice, equity, and good conscience because the Defendants should have adhered to the

Concession Agreement when calculating the maximum toll levels.

89. The Defendants are in possession of money that unequivocally belongs to

Plaintiff and class members and is retaining it inequitably.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, pray

for judgment against the Defendants as follows:

90. For an order:

a. Certifying the case to proceed on a class basis, pursuant to Illinois Code of

Civil Procedure 735 ILCS § 2-801;

b. For the following Class:

All persons and entities that paid a toll on the Chicago Skyway Toll
Bridge above the maximum toll levels set the Concession Agreement in

27
 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024.

c. Appointing Plaintiff Rockwell Rowe Jr. and Plaintiff Michele Rowe as Class
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

Representatives; and

d. Appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel Kenneth T. Goldstein and Krislov &

Associates, Ltd., as Class Counsel.

91. As to all Counts:

a. Award Plaintiffs injunctive relief to make Defendants charge the appropriate

toll rates for the rest of 2024 going forward;

b. Award Plaintiffs and class members their actual and compensatory damages,

restitution and interest;

c. Award reasonable attorney’s fees;

d. Award costs; and

e. Grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

The plaintiffs by and through legal counsel hereby demand a jury in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Plaintiff:

/s/ Kenneth T. Goldstein

Kenneth T. Goldstein
Cook County ID 35688/Firm ID 91198
Matthew G. Norgard
KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1006
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tel: (312) 606-0500
Email: ken@krislovlaw.com
mnorgard@krislovlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28
 FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

EXHIBIT A

Exhibit A
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
 FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712

EXHIBIT B

Exhibit B
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712
FILED DATE: 6/18/2024 3:28 PM 2024CH05712