IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS FIRST MUNICIPAL DISTRICT

KATHY CUMMINGS and JERE ROBINSON, ) both individually and on behalf of a class of ) others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF ) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF ) STREETS AND SANITATION, ) ) CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation, ) ) and RENEE VENTURA, ) ) Defendants. )

No. 2012 M1 450692

(consolidation requested with No. 2013 M1-450021) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, Kathy Cummings and Jere Robinson, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals, by and through their attorneys, James L. Bowers and James R. Fennerty, for their complaint against defendants City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings; City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation; City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation; and Renee Ventura, state as follows: NATURE OF CLAIM 1. This is a civil rights class action brought to redress the deprivation by Defendants, through acts or omissions committed under color of law, of rights secured to Plaintiffs and the proposed class by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, specifically

the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Since 2010, the Defendants have instituted a policy of aggressive and arbitrary enforcement of a vaguely worded and ambiguous municipal ordinance known as the Chicago Weeds Ordinance. The number of tickets issued under that ordinance has risen from 5,522 in 2009, to 11,104 in 2012. Based on responses to Freedom of Information Act requests, it is estimated that in the last two years the City of Chicago has collected over $7,000,000 in fines through enforcement of that ordinance. During that same time period, between one-third and one-half of all tickets for violations of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance have been issued in five of the Citys poorer West and South side communities (9th, 16th, 20th, 24th, and 34th Wards), raising the question of the existence of an arbitrary or unconstitutional selective enforcement policy. 2. In its haste to generate substantial additional revenue through escalating numbers of weeds citations, the City of Chicago has failed to attempt to define the terms weeds or average height of weeds, has failed to train its inspectors to differentiate between weeds and native vegetation, has failed to require that inspectors adhere to the Citys own rules, regulations and policies with respect to native vegetation, and has encouraged arbitrary and capricious behavior on the part of its inspectors, all to the detriment of the freedom of expression, due process and equal protection rights of thousands of citizens of the City of Chicago every year, including the Plaintiffs herein. 3. The Citys indiscriminate weeds enforcement policy has violated the First Amendment expressive conduct rights of native plant and other environmentally conscious gardeners and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights of every citizen ticketed for violation of the ordinance, as written. The City of Chicago is intentionally and knowingly using an obviously unconstitutional weeds ordinance to raise

millions of dollars in municipal revenue on the backs of some of Chicagos poorest and most vulnerable citizens, instead of through the more difficult and transparent process of enacting tax legislation that is fairly and equitably assessed. 4. The City of Chicago has been on notice for more than twenty years, since the case of Schmidling v. City of Chicago, 1 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 1993), that resident gardeners who maintained natural landscapes in the City were very concerned that the City would begin to avail itself of the ambiguous language in the weeds ordinance and enforce it in an unconstitutional manner. 5. This action also arises under the Illinois Administrative Review Law, 735 ILCS 5/3101, et seq., and is brought to reverse the decisions of the City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings in which guilty verdicts were entered against each of the named plaintiffs for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance, Chicago Municipal Code 7-28120(a). 6. This action seeks relief for the named Plaintiffs and each class member in the form of a declaratory judgment finding said Ordinance unconstitutional on its face and as applied; a mandatory injunction prohibiting enforcement of said Ordinance; compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, a refund of all penalties imposed and collected under the Chicago Weeds Ordinance and filing fees and court costs associated with said ordinance; compensatory damages allowed under the Civil Rights Act for the emotional distress, stress, humiliation and loss of liberty associated with attempts to comply with said ordinance; punitive damages against all named individual defendants; and attorneys fees and costs incurred in this matter.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has jurisdiction of this claim under the Illinois Administrative Review Law, 735 ILCS 5/3-104. Plaintiffs Federal Constitutional and Civil Rights claims arise out of, and are inextricably intertwined with, Plaintiffs administrative review claims, and this court has jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to the Illinois Constitution, Article 6, 9; U.S. Constitution, Amend. I, V, and XIV; and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983. This Court also has jurisdiction over this action under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 735 ILCS 5/2-701, as it is filed to obtain declaratory relief relative to the constitutionality of the policies of a local government. 8. Venue is proper in this circuit under 735 ILCS 5/2-101, 5/2-103, and 5/3-104, all events or omissions giving rise to this claim having occurred in this circuit.

PARTIES 9. Plaintiff Kathy Cummings is a resident of the State of Illinois, County of Cook and City of Chicago and is the owner of the property located at 2533 W. Thomas Street in Chicago, Illinois, said property having been the subject of a citation issued for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance. 10. Plaintiff Jere Robinson is a resident of the State of Illinois, County of Cook and City of Chicago and was the owner of a vacant parcel of land property located at 8557 S. Loomis, in Chicago, Illinois, said property having been the subject of a citation issued for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance.

11. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the laws of the State of Illinois. Defendant City of Chicago maintained, managed and or operated the Department of Streets and Sanitation and the Department of Administrative Hearings. 12. At all times mentioned herein, defendant Renee Ventura was employed by the Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation and was acting under color of law and as an employee or agent of the City of Chicago, Illinois. She is being sued in her individual capacity.

FACTS 13. The Chicago Weeds Ordinance provides that: Any person who owns or controls property within the City must cut or otherwise control all weeds on such property so that the average height of such weeds does not exceed ten inches. 7-28-120(a) 14. Unlike the Illinois Noxious Weed Law, 505 ILCS 100/1 et seq., and its regulations, 8 Ill. Admin. Code 220.60, the Chicago Weeds Ordinance contains no definition of the term weed, no list of plants considered to be weeds by the City of Chicago, and no rational means by which a citizen would be able to calculate the average height of all of the undefined weeds on her property. 15. In 2008, in apparent recognition of the vagueness of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance, the City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation and Department of the Environment adopted a Rule and Regulation to provide guidance on determining whether vegetation is a weed(s) within the meaning of Section 7-28-120 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, and as such is subject to the restrictions and abatement measures set forth in Section 7-28-120. The definition contained within the adopted Rule and Regulation provides:

Weed or weeds means vegetation that is not managed or maintained by the person who owns or controls the property on which all such vegetation is located and which, on average, exceeds ten inches in height. The aforesaid rule, which apparently has not been communicated to city inspectors and administrative law judges, or is routinely ignored by said employees, does little or nothing to eliminate the subjective nature of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance. 16. The preamble to the aforesaid Rule and Regulation recognizes that the City of Chicago promotes the use of native vegetation as a means to conserve water and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, a policy that would be consistent with the Citys motto, adopted in the 1830s, Urbs in Horto, or City in a Garden. By promoting native vegetation with one hand and citing it as weeds with the other, defendant City of Chicago has engaged in a game of entrapment of the residents of the City of Chicago. 17. On July 28, 2010, in spite of the obvious deficiencies in the Chicago Weeds Ordinance, the Chicago City Council voted unanimously, in a vote of 49 to 0, to increase the penalties for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance, from a range of $100.00 minimum to $300.00 maximum, to a new range of $500.00 minimum to $1000.00 maximum. On November 11, 2010, the Council voted to again raise the penalties for said ordinance to a range of $600.00 minimum to $1200.00 maximum. 18. Under Illinois law, a municipality is prohibited from levying fines for violation of an ordinance in excess of $750.00 for any one violation. 65 ILCS 5/1-2-1. Not only does the Chicago Weed Ordinance maximum penalty exceed the penalty allowed under state law, but also, on information and belief, the City routinely requests imposition of the maximum fine of $1200.00 in cases involving the default or failure to appear of a cited resident.

19. The language of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance is threatening and coercive in that it arbitrarily provides that each day that such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense to which a separate fine shall apply. 7-28-120(a). Theoretically, the ordinance empowers the City to seek the assessment of tens of thousands of dollars in fines for what is really a single violation. 20. The City of Chicagos Administrative Notice of Ordinance Violation is also threatening and coercive in that it states: Failure to appear for a hearing at the location on the date and time reflected on the reverse side may cause a judgment to be entered against you. Fines not to exceed the maximum penalties as specified in the Municipal Code of Chicago for each violation, costs, restitution and other fees may be imposed. Judgments entered against you may be enforced through wage garnishment, collection agency and credit bureau action and the imposition of liens on real estate and personal estates. Expenses including but not limited to attorneys fees and court costs shall be debts due and owing to the City. 21. The City of Chicagos Administrative Notice of Ordinance Violation is also factually false and misleading in that the violation is defined as Weeds exceed ten inches, completely ignoring the average height requirement set forth in the ordinance.

FACTS APPLICABLE TO KATHY CUMMINGS 22. For much of her adult life, plaintiff Kathy Cummings has been engaged in expressive activities related to the promotion of natural landscapes and green environmental issues. She has run as a Green Party candidate in Illinois for United States Senate and for the State House of Representatives; she is a founding member of Citizens Act to Protect Our Water (CAPOW!), Milk Outrage Organization (MOO), and Healthy Air; she has registered her yard as a certified

waystation for monarch butterflies; she has been a member of the DuPage County Bee Keepers Association; and she was the founder of the literary arts magazine Nit & Wit. 23. In addition to her organizational involvement, plaintiff has, for several years, managed and maintained a natural landscape of native vegetation on her own property at 2533 W. Thomas Street, in the City of Chicago. 24. Plaintiffs natural landscape was planted and maintained as both an expression of her support for environmental issues, as well as a statement of the natural beauty to be discovered in maintenance of a non-traditional garden constructed entirely of native plants. Her front yard includes over thirty species of native plants, carefully and meticulously planted, displayed and arranged within natural borders constructed of intertwined twigs and branches. 25. In 2004, plaintiffs front yard garden received the first place award in the City of Chicago Landscape Awards Program in the category of native landscapes. That award was based on the evaluation of the planning, maintenance, freedom from weeds, creativity and environmental soundness of plaintiffs native garden. In 2005, plaintiffs garden received an honorable mention award from the City of Chicago. 26. The native landscapes award category was defined by the City as a landscape that provided habitat for wildlife, featured primarily native plants, and utilized conservation practices that minimized watering and maintenance. 27. On or about October 19, 2012, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, defendant Renee Ventura, an employee of the City of Chicago, Department of Streets and Sanitation, conducted an inspection of plaintiffs front yard area, and, subsequent thereto, issued a citation to plaintiff for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance.

28. At the time of the inspection of plaintiffs yard by defendant Renee Ventura, plaintiff maintained a sign in the midst of the yard provided by the national non-profit organization known as Wild Ones. The sign stated Native Plants Natural Landscapes Toward Harmony with Nature. The sign also displayed the telephone number and web site for Wild Ones. 29. On October 19, 2012, and at all times relevant hereto, plaintiff had and has continued to maintain her yards natural landscape in a condition similar to that existing in 2004 at the time of her first place award for native landscaping. 30. Plaintiff timely filed a written request for a hearing to contest the citation for violation of the Chicago Municipal Code with the Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings. 31. The Department of Administrative Hearings scheduled a hearing for November 29, 2012, which proceeded on that date. Prior to the start of any of the hearings on that date, plaintiff understood the Administrative Law Judges opening remarks to all ticketed residents present in his courtroom to include the comment that everyone in the room present for a hearing would receive, at a minimum, a $600.00 fine. 32. At the hearing, the City presented no witnesses, and the only evidence presented by the City consisted of the ticket written by the City inspector, defendant Renee Ventura, for an alleged violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance and photographs purportedly taken by that same inspector. 33. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, presented evidence that there were over thirty types of native plants in her yard, that there were no weeds, and that her yard was regularly managed and maintained by herself and her partner.

34. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Administrative law Judge, while recognizing that plaintiffs yard appeared to be in basically the same condition as at the time of plaintiffs award from the City in 2004, stated that, based on his common experience in life, one yellowish green plant, which he did not name or otherwise identify, appeared to be a weed. 35. At the hearing, the City presented no evidence to contradict plaintiffs testimony that her yard was regularly managed and maintained, as required by the City rule. 36. At the hearing, the City presented no evidence of either the inspectors or the Administrative Law Judges expertise in horticultural science and did not previously notify or warn plaintiff that expert evidence would be relied upon by the City or the tribunal in reaching an administrative decision. 37. At the hearing, both the Citys prosecuting attorney and the Administrative Law Judge erroneously stated that the standard under the Chicago Weeds Ordinance was whether there were any weeds taller than ten inches, as opposed to whether the average of all weeds exceeded ten inches. 38. Based solely on the Administrative Law Judges observation of one plant in one photograph, the judge entered a finding of liability against the plaintiff and assessed a fine of $600.00, plus $40.00 in court costs.

FACTS APPLICABLE TO JERE ROBINSON 39. On or about August 8, 2012, Plaintiff Jere Robinson owned a grass-covered vacant lot located at 8557 S. Loomis, Chicago, Illinois, which Plaintiff regularly mowed, managed and maintained through the services of a professional lawn care company.

10

40. On or about August 27, 2012, unbeknownst to Plaintiff, an employee of the City of Chicago conducted an inspection of Plaintiffs property, and on or about December 10, 2012, approximately three months after the inspection, issued a citation to Plaintiff for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance. 41. Plaintiff timely filed a written request for a hearing to contest the citation for violation of the Chicago Municipal Code with the Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings. 42. On or about December 31, 2012, Plaintiff appeared pro se on the scheduled hearing date, and, on that date, for the first time observed photographs of the alleged violation, which showed only selected portions of Plaintiffs property. 43. Plaintiff felt overwhelmed, misled and coerced by the administrative process, including by representations on the citation and by the prosecutor and the administrative law judge, to the effect that if she lost after an administrative hearing the proposed $600.00 fine could be substantially increased. 44. Without her own photographic evidence of the entire lot from four months earlier, without knowledge of what constituted a weed, without knowledge of whether the City could legally construe grass as a weed, without knowledge that the ordinance called for a measurement of the average height of weeds, without the ability to determine from the Citys photographs the actual height of the grass on her lot, and fearing the power of the City to impose substantial additional penalties, Plaintiff decided to plead guilty. 45. After receiving the plea, the administrative law judge imposed a fine of $600.00, plus costs, for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance.

11

46. Approximately two weeks later, on or about January 16, 2013, feeling that she had been bullied and misled during the administrative process, Plaintiff timely filed an appeal of the administrative finding of violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance, Case No. 2013 M1-450021.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 47. Plaintiffs Kathy Cummings and Jere Robinson bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals who were issued citations for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance during the two year period preceding the filing of this complaint. 48. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action under Illinois law and satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements for maintaining a class action. 49. The members of the class are so numerous as to render joinder impracticable, thousands of individuals having been issued citations for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance. 50. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class and predominate over any questions that affect only individual members of the class. All members of the class had a right not to be charged with violation of a vague and ambiguous ordinance, in violation of their First, Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendment rights. 51. The named Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class. Plaintiffs and the class members sustained damages arising out of Defendants course of conduct. The harms suffered by the named Plaintiffs is typical of the harms suffered by the class members.

12

52. The representative Plaintiffs have the requisite personal interest in the outcome of this action and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs have no interest that is adverse to the interests of the members of the class. 53. Plaintiffs counsel have the resources, expertise and experience to successfully prosecute this action against the Defendants. Counsel for Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among members of the class, or between counsel and members of the class. 54. A class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy because joinder of all members of the class is impracticable, and many members of the class cannot vindicate their rights by individual suits because their damages are small relative to the burden and expense of litigating individual actions.

DAMAGES 55. The damages in this case consist of the fines and court costs paid to the City of Chicago for all alleged violations of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance by each class member over the past two years; the fees paid to appeal convictions for violations of the ordinance by each class member over the past two years; the stress, humiliation and loss of liberty inherent in responding to the unconstitutional citations, as experienced by each class member cited over the past two years; punitive damages; and reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

13

COUNT I JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW LAW (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq.) 56. Paragraphs 1 55 are incorporated herein by reference. 57. On November 29, 2012, and December 31, 2012, final administrative decisions affecting the rights of the Plaintiffs (Decisions) were issued by the City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings. 58. Plaintiffs have timely filed this action seeking judicial review of the Administrative Hearing Decisions within 35 days from the date a copy of the Decision was served upon each plaintiff. 59. The Plaintiffs have exhausted all available remedies under the Administrative Review law and have no further plain, speedy, adequate remedy under the law. 60. The Plaintiffs desire a judicial review of the Decisions, copies of which were attached as Exhibits to their initial appeal documents, because the Decisions are clearly erroneous and otherwise not in accordance with the law. 61. Given that the administrative agency failed to properly consider municipal law in the form of Defendant Citys rules and regulations interpreting the ordinance at issue, Plaintiffs request that the Decisions be reversed or remanded for further hearing or proceedings. 62. Given that the Administrative Law Judge lacked statutory authority to make constitutional findings, Plaintiffs request that the Decisions be reversed on constitutional grounds or that the matters be remanded for the taking of additional evidence where from the state of the record it appears that such action is just. 63. The City of Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings is requested to file an answer consisting of the complete administrative record of the proceedings resulting in the

14

Decisions, including the transcript of all preliminary remarks and admonitions made by the Administrative Law Judge prior to the start of the hearings, the transcripts of the evidence, the reports of proceedings, and all exhibits and submissions by the parties. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment reversing the Decisions of the Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings, and granting such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and proper.

COUNT II VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 1983 (FIRST AMENDMENT EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT) 64. Paragraphs 1-55 are incorporated herein by reference. 65. Plaintiffs request a trial by jury on this count. 66. The citation of Plaintiff Kathy Cummings and all similarly situated gardeners and proposed class members for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance has had a chilling effect on Plaintiffs and the class members fundamental right to engage in expressive conduct and symbolic speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as made actionable by and through 42 U. S.C. 1983, and has resulted in the imposition of illegal and excessive fines and court costs, humiliation, embarrassment, extreme stress and other injuries to all Plaintiffs. 67. The Chicago Weeds Ordinance was promulgated for the protection of an arbitrary and historically changing sense of aesthetic values and is not narrowly tailored for that purpose and is therefore facially unconstitutional because of overbreadth in sweeping up protected expressive conduct.

15

68. The public, organizations for the promotion and preservation of art, legislatures and courts of law have recognized that native plants, such as Chapman Kellys Wildflower Works installation in Chicagos Grant Park, can constitute a form of site-specific environmental art. 69. By virtue of the myriad types of plants in Plaintiffs yard, the carefully maintained twig borders and erected signage, it was or reasonably should have been obvious to Defendant Renee Ventura that Plaintiffs yard was managed and maintained in full compliance with the Chicago Weeds Ordinance and, at the same time, constituted an expression by Plaintiff of an environmental ethic. 70. Defendant City of Chicago, through enforcement of its express policies, failure to adequately train its inspectors, push for increased citations under a fatally overbroad and vague ordinance, and promulgation of increasingly excessive and confiscatory fines, has violated Plaintiffs right to expressive conduct, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

COUNT III VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 1983 (FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS) 71. Paragraphs 1-55 are incorporated herein by reference. 72. Plaintiffs requests a trial by jury on this count. 73. The citation of both named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members for violation of Chicagos Weeds Ordinance violated their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as made actionable by and through 42 U.S.C. 1983. The municipal administrative hearing procedures are fundamentally unfair in that Plaintiffs were and are denied the right to a neutral and impartial city inspector and hearing officer, the right to fully develop a factual record, the right to have their evidence and testimony weighed in a manner
16

equal to that of the non-present city inspector, and the right to have notice and fair resolution of issues involving scientific expertise. 74. The citation of both named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance also violated their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in that the administrative process, notices of violation and municipal fine structure for violation of the ordinance are coercive and exceed the municipalitys legislative grant of authority. 75. The citation of both named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance further violated their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in that the ordinance, on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs, contains vague, ambiguous and undefined terminology and imposes a standard that is impossible to apply, other than arbitrarily, impermissibly delegated police powers and basic policy considerations to the City, its employees and inspectors, and to administrative hearing officers. 76. The violation of plaintiffs due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as made actionable by and through 42 U.S.C. 1983, has resulted in the imposition of illegal and excessive fines and court costs, humiliation, embarrassment, extreme stress and other injuries to Plaintiffs.

COUNT IV VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 1983 (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION) 77. Paragraphs 1-55 are incorporated herein by reference. 78. Plaintiffs requests a trial by jury on this count.
17

79. The citation of the named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members for violation of the Chicago Weed Ordinance has violated Plaintiffs right under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to not be arbitrarily treated differently from other similarly situated individuals. 80. The citation of the named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance was based on a selective and arbitrary enforcement policy and improper motives of the Defendant City of Chicago, including a concentration of enforcement in predominantly African-American wards. 81. Defendant Renee Ventura, and other unnamed City employees, in citing the named Plaintiffs and all proposed class members for violation of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance, intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs for the purpose of arbitrarily increasing municipal revenue, in spite of the fact that municipal rules and common sense should reasonably have alerted Defendants, and other unnamed City employees, that issuance of the citations was irrational and wholly arbitrary. 82. The violation of Plaintiffs equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as made actionable by and through 42 U.S.C. 1983, has resulted in the imposition of illegal and excessive fines and court costs, humiliation, embarrassment, extreme stress and other injuries to Plaintiffs.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY 83. The Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a proposed class of others similarly situated, request that this Honorable Court grant them the following relief: A. An order certifying this action as a class action. B. A judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages to the named Plaintiffs and each member of the proposed class. C. A judgment against individual Defendants for punitive damages. D. A declaratory judgment against Defendants declaring the Chicago Weeds Ordinance to be unconstitutional. E. A permanent injunction against enforcement of the Chicago Weeds Ordinance as written. F. A monetary award for attorneys fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. G. Such other additional and equitable relief as this Court deems just.

Dated: June 20, 2013 ______________________________ James L. Bowers James L. Bowers Attorney at Law 631 N. Central Avenue Chicago, IL 60644 (312) 343-6326 Attorney No. 16009 James R. Fennerty James R. Fennerty & Associates, L.L.C. 36 S. Wabash Ave., Suite 1310 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 345-1704

19