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

, 2004 – present ii
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

, 2004 – present iii
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.

, 2004 – present iv
^ 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

, 2004 – present v
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
Y1088662 625 ILCS 5/3-413 P 7/2/1990
Local Offense Code: 1813810 P3782962 Offense Not Mapped CONV 11/12/1990
Y3273515 625 ILCS 5/3-413 P 5/9/1993
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
Failed to Use Horn
not assigned
not assigned
625 ILCS 5/11-601
625 ILCS 5/12-601
P
P
3/8/2017

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
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.
027
040
047
048
049
ppp
ooo
g,
061
064
065
078
. 199
ggr
0O0
0G0
o
n]
opo
ooo
poo
2
g
063,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK OOUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
b(éf M. Id‘r-‘uw
R . C(;-;/‘fa'x Hd{gl (om‘m»z
CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET
Jury Demand Qe DN«
. Jﬁ ERSOEALH‘UURYIWRONGFULDEATK
Motor Vehicle
Medical Malpractice
Asbestos
Dram Shop
Praduct Liability
Construction Injuries
(including Structural Work Act, Road
Construction Injuries Act aad negligeace)
Railroad/FELA
Pediatric Lead Exposure
Other Personal Injury/Wrongful Déathu
Inteational Tort
Miscellancous Statutory Action
(Please Specify Below*¥)
Premises Liability
Fen-phew/Redux Litigation
-Silicone Tmplaat
062_PROPERTY DAMAGE
066_LEGAL MALPRACTICE
Q TAX & MISCELLANEQUS REMEDIES
Confession of Judgment
Replevin
Tax
Coandemnation
Detinue
Unemployment Campensation
Administrative Review Action
Petition to Register Foreign Judgmeat
All Other Extraordinary Remedies
No.
2006L00062827
CALENDAR/ROGHN E
“TIME 002090
Promices 1 5mihil 1+v
QO COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
002 Breach of Coatract
070 [Professional Malprzchee
(other than legal or medical)
071 Fraud
072 Consumer Fraud
073 Breach of Warranty
074 Statutory Action
(Please Specify Below**)
075 Other Commercial Litigation
(Please Specify Below**)
076 Retaliatory Discliarge
0o
0
gopo
00
Q 077 LIBEL/SLANDER -
O OTHER ACT] IONS
0 .079 Petition for Qu:hl'fled Ordm
Q 084 Petition to Issuc Subpocaa
O 100 Petition for Discovery .
*
(Att3cncy)
T o smases CCRRK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
Moot

R
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, ) 20061000289
V.
) NO. CALENDAR/ROOM E
) TIME 00200
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL ) Premises Liabilixy
COMPANY, L.L.C., ) i ¥
)
Defendants. ) i
COMPLAINT
Now comes the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, by and thmuglgns
Daley & Mohan, P.C., and for his Complaint against the Defendan'-f.;)
CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, L.L.C., hereinafter “THE RITZ”, states a5 Bpllor
1. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant, THE RITZ, was 2 foreign
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, Tllinois.
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.
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.

(¢) 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),
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
plus costs of this action.
Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
150 North Wacker Drive
Suite 1550
Chicago, lllinois 60606
(312) 422-9999
Firm No. 36564

QuOCoNRS |
IS |
N ;
g i
5 |
83 1
o8 !
=™ >
Q. 6°E
=N§ E ri=
=85z z 2
=05 P S
=EQ2sFwy
= = << ]
ENI5 06 2
=®F N D
=0F &
CLERK GF THE CIRCUIT COURT - COOX COUATY
0R10908 Las-0! L/10/2006 32703
ATTY: 36564 019 ESHEPARD
i i $50:00L.60
CHSE NO: 2006L000289 LALERDAR: E
COURT DATE: G/0/0000 1230044
CASE TOTAL: $324.00
12 Jurars 3 4230.00
Autanstion $15.90
Docuzent Storase $15.0
3 $13.90
$10.00
Faa 6 5240.50
olution $1.00
CHECK 7284
CHECK AHaUnT: 432499
CHANGE 30,00
TRANSACTION TOTAL: 35240

DEAN M. TORIUMI, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) NO.
)
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL )
COMPANY, L.L.C., )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
Now comes the Plaintiff, DEAN M. TORIUMI, by and through h:
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.
€2
€
Wa
O1KI
C
sl
¢
i

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
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
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 9
E'Emcrg
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‘
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to
before me this 3"‘“day of March, 2006.
FFICALSEAL
NOTARV PUBLIC’:
MY co mﬁi’ltums
BERNARD ROCCANOVA
EXPIRES: 10-10-06
Bernard Roccanova
Daley & Mohan, P.C.
Suite 1550
(312) 422 9999,
Wl
S"d
Le

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 SUMMONS CHSE TOTAL .40 §
‘o each defendant: T 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, ifany, 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 ofservice:
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

--..SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
TYPE LAW DISTRICT 003
i o STROM 3696~
SHERIFF'S NUMBER 685253-001L CASE NUMBER 0&2_&“ DEPUTY:
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
Zz<, | ey 3696
T
1 SEX 1} mE
2 NAME OF DEFENDANT RITZ (I:ARL/'%I HOQTEL
COHPMIY LLC{L/ ‘%C
(B) MICHAEL F. SHEAHAN, sm:mr 5 nv.
__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
—__05 WRONG ADDRESS
06 NO SUCH ADDRESS —__
11 NO .REGISTERED AGT.
12 OTHER REASONS
13 OUT OF COUNTY
FEE .00 MILEAGE .00 TOTAL .00 $625

COUNTY DEPARTMENT ~ LAW DIVISION
DEAN M. TORIUMI,
Plaintiffs,
No. 06 L 000289
-vs-
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL
COMPANY, L.L.C.,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL? /I )
g
TO: Bernard Roccanova &
Daley & Mohan, P.C. & al
&0 =
=
n
150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1550 3
Chicago, Illinois 60606 "G‘(
.?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
2, ®
2820 .

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.
JOHNSON & BELLL, LTD.
33 West Monroe Street
Suite 2700
(312) 372-0770
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.

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
i
(4296) shall complete outstanding written discovery by I:: 5
(4218) 8. shall be presented for deposition by - VBJ ;
O
(4206) 9. (Plaintiff)(Defendant)(Add. Party) shall answer 213 (f)(3) lnterrogak!fl'gsw 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
; -~ ismissed under 735 ILCS 5/2-1009.
6# Judge Kathy hi.
NAgIE: flzp&/. [ ENTE!
PRORES>: MAY 0 4 2006
ATTY ID¥: -
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 THISCMC 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 ARRIVING ON THE TRIAL CALL IN ROOM 2005 MUST HAVE ALL DISCOVERY
INLINES 2 THROUGH 11 COMPLETED.
F
T
COPY OF THIS ORDER IS TQ BE SENT TO EACH PARTY BY HIS/HER COUNSEL WITHIN
(10) DAYS OF THE INITIAL CMC.
N L
xA Y
TEN D

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
DALEY CENTER COURT HOUSE, 50 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, CHICAGO, iL
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
(disability caused by electrocution)

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

DEAN M. TORIGMI, %
Plaintiff, )
v
3y NO.
i
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL ) 20061 002289
COMPANY, L.L.C.y )
)
Defendants. }
COMPLAINT
vooe
Now comes the Plaintiff, DEAN M., TORIUMI, by and trough hihﬂ,{o{ays,
=, s
Daley & Mohan, P-C., and for his Complaint against the Defendant, THE RIFEZ-
CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,L.L.C, hereinefter “THE RITZ", states 28 fuéjé&‘ %, ’
L Al times relevant hereto, the Defendaat, THE RITZ, vl 2 Tobbigh
Hmited Hiability corperation, authorized to do and doing business in the Stnle; of Hiinois
and Michigan, among others,
2, At all times ralevant hereto, the Fl;intiff. DEAN M. TORIUMI, was and is
a resident of Cook County, Jllinels.
3 At all times relevant hereto, THE RITZ was the owner of certein real
estate Tocated ar,300 Town Center Drive, Dearborn, Michigan, on which teal estate THE
RITZ did operate, maintain and cantrol @ certain publlo hotel, commonly knowm 8 The
4, On January 14, 2004, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toriumi, was lawfully on the
premises as aforesaid a5 2 paying gusst of said hotel and place of public accommodation,
and 45 such, was & business invitee of Defendant.

5. At all times hereinafter mentioned, it was the duty of the Defendant to
exercise ordinary care in the ownetship, maintenance and control of their real and
personal property to See that thelr premises, and the personal property mainteined
thereon, were in reagonably safe condition for the use of business invitees on the
property, inchuding the Plaintiff herein,
6. Al sl times hereinafter mentioned, the Plaintiff, Dean M. Toritmi, was in
the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety.
7. At all times relovant hersio, the Defendant provided certain electrical
fiztures In its ropps, including a fixture located next to the bed behind the nightstand.
8. On the date as aforessid, the Plaintiff did reach behind the nightstand ta
retmove 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 electrielty,
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
and was not properly insulated, thus directly causing the Plaintlff to suffer the electrical
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
(@ Allowing bare wires exposed on the plug to remnain ina public area
should have knawn of the danger thereby created;
(d) Failure to wam the Plaintiff that there was & defective plug and
fixturs in his room;
(¢) Failureto eliminate the hazard caused by the exposed wires on the
electrical cord in the room 88 aforesaid,
12 As o direet and proxitmate result of one or more of the foregoing, the
internalty and externally, of 2 pepmanent and lasting nature, which have caused and will
confinus to cause pain in body and mind, and as 2 result of which the Plaintff has been
and will continue to be farther prevented and Jimited in attending to his usual duties and
afFairs, and has lost and witl in the Sstare lose great gain which he otherwise would have
made and aequired, all to Plaintiff's damage.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintff DEAN M. TORIUMI, preys for judgment against
Defendant, THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC., a forsign limited
liability corporation i ar AMOUDT which is within the jurlsdictional power of this Cowt to
awagd as proven by the evidence, and in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00),
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
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 Hotel Company, LEC
c/o Prentice Hall Corporatian
32N, LaSale Street
Chicago, 1L
THE RITZ-CARLTON ROTEL
COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants.
SEMMONS
To each defendant'
YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to file an answer to the aamplaint (n this case, » eagy of whish is kepeto attached, or
otherwisc file your sppearance, and pay the required fee, in the offles of the Clerk ofthis Courtat the faliowing Jocation:
Pichard J. Daley Canter, 56 W. Washingtan, Reom 802, Chi¢ago, Iliners 60602,
You muzst fite within 30 days after service of thls summons, hat counting the day of service. IF YOU FAlL TO DO $0, A JUDGMENT BY
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
fets, If any, immediately sfter servica. [fservice cannotbe mude, Lhis summons shall be returntd 80 ¢ndorsed: Thiz summons may not be
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
U0 7
DEAN M. TORIUMI, ) 0&1”,00 O{UISL
o ) 0”% By~
Plaintiffs, ) 2%
] e N h.
-Vs- }
' 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.
Respectfully submitted,
o Likl
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
Telephone: (312) 0770
Attorney No. 06347

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
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.
JOHNSON & BELLL, LTD.
33 West Monroe Street
Suite 2700
(312) 372-0770
/4, .
T penaltics/as provided by law
pursuant to ILL.REV.STAT. CHAP. 110
Sec. 1-109, 1 certify that the statements
set forth herein are true and correct,

Case: 1:06-cv-01720 Document #: 2 Filed: 03/29/06 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #4
L COVER SHEET L
cenor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or mhcr
PAPCTS 85 FEqUirG: b
Clerls ol Court Tor the purpose of initiating
the civil docket sheet. (Sh
06CV1720
JUDGE GUZMAN 1em
*.ql
MAG. DENLOW
(d) PLATNTIFFS
DEAN M. TORTUMI
{b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintift
(RXCEPT IN LS. PI. /INTIFFCMW
MAR29 7005
%EL WDfilflsgumy o Residence of First Listed Defendant
(IN US. PLAINTIEE CASE
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CA:
LAND INVOLVED
GOUQT]
FENDANTS
THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY. [.L.C.
,f
ONLYY
USE THE LOCATION GF THE
() Atorncy's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Bernard Rocuanova, Duley & Moban, P.C.
Chicago, linois 60606
‘Atiormags (I Known)
Robert M. Burke/Johnsan & Belt, Lid,
Chicago, Tllinois 60602
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
I us. Govenmuen
Plaintiff
{Place an X in One o Only)
s Federal Question
{U.S. Government Nota Party)
(W4 Diversiny
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties
iin ltem 111y
[ us qoveromen
Defendant
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citieen of This Stale @1 fi
F
Ingorporaled or I
of Business [n This Stale
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES;¥lace an X" ir One Box for Plaintift
‘and One Box for Defendans)
I
ipal Mlace Dn Da
Citizen of Anwtber State [ |2 [ |2 ncorporaied and Principal Place 5
D D of Busincss [n Another Sute D E
CittemorSubjsctofa []3 [ 3
Foreign Country
Forsign Nation e O
1Y, NATURE OF SUI'T (Place an “X" in Onc Box Goly)
CUNTRACT TORTS FORFEITURK/PENALTY| BANKRUPTCY. OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance
130 M
it Agricutare
626 e Funsd & i
[Tz Appeat 25 L5 154 L300 51 espprtion
410 Ancinust
430 Bnks and Binking
450 Commeree 117 Reosins
2t Doparmation
710 Racketeas dnflucined il
Conupn Ocgntons
1480 Cosumer C
400 Ciblorsinto
550 Seeunty/C onnudit
130 Milles At 315 Auplan: raodua Med Malpractics | [To2s rug Reloted Scizure | (023 Withdrawal
190 Soganiablo Insuument Liabitity J3003 Forsomal Dijury- of Prupenty 21 LS 881 IRUSC ST
150 Rovurery
of Overpament | (120 assanle, Libel& Venduct Lisbility o3¢ Ligwer Laws T
& nforcementof Jiudpmeat Slamibar 6K Ashestos Perss Jodt RR. & Tk PROPERTY RIGH
1951 Medseans Act 3330 Federal limplayers™ Injury Tevsluct J630 Airline B 520 oy
352 Rosoery
of Letauhed Linbility Lisbiliy 1660 Occupinionl ol I,x”f:* o
Student Loans (exel. vet s | 340 Maine PERSONAL PROPERTY Sty Hoallh D
03358 Reaoveryof Ovorgyment | []345 Marine Pt Ji7 Cnher Fraud oo cnber [0 Tadan
of Vetesn Lielity [371 Truth in Lendimg,
LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY
180 Stockhalders (356 Mot Vehicle 75 Costomer Challenge
D'Mi Other Persainal
Puopeity Danage
345 property Damage
Procust Lishility
M.
(193 Contrawr Pradoct Libilivy
196 Franchuse
REALPROPERTY
(355 Motor Vel
Produer Linbility
[®D366: Other Persoml 1)
CIVIL RICH TS FRISONER FETITIONS|
216 Land Condemnation 141 vaing D510 Mations to Vacate
220 Foreclisure Senlency
230 Rent 1ease & Ieuiment Tlahgas Comus:
Aceommodations | (1530 Genesal
1535 Death Foualty
444 Wolfare:
445 A, - -Cployment | []540 Mandamus & Other
i
240 (onts 1o Land
245 Ton Product Lishility
290 A1l Other Roal Property
Dfl {1 Eair | hor Stidnrds
A
0720 Lebon Mgt Relations
3730 Laboi/ Mgt Reportiing
& Disclosure Act
0740 Ry 1 abor Act
23790 Oother Labior Litigation
CJ791 Empl. Rat Inc.
et sna (1395
e Black Lung (923,
[Js63 PIWCDIWW (405(2))
[CIse4 s510 Title X V1
[los ksl (303¢g))
12115¢ 3470
[J591 Aggiculurl ets
[T502 buonomic Sizbilization Aet
%97 finviranniental Matters
591 Lzniuy Allocation Act
395 Ficedonn of Infurntion A
FEDERAL
TAX SUITS 000 Appt of
0870 Toutes (L1 5. Plaintitf
o Difendint)
7t tks—hisd party
Defermination Undor
Fquil Access 10 histce
7950 Consttutonaliy o
Stal Stautes
[1590 Other Stacoty Actions
1416 ADA - Gther st it Righus Seeurily A 26USC 7609
1440 Other Civit Rights | (1525 Prison Condition
{PLACE AN "X IN ONE BOX ONLY} al 1o Dustrict
Y. ORIGIN 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
a bricf staement of cause.)
Title 28 U.8.C. Sectiony 1332 and 1441
VII, PREVIOUS BANKRUPTCY MATTERS (For nuture
of
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
sepirate altachment if necessary)
VI REQUESTED [N
CUMPLAIN
[TICTTRCK IF TS 15 A CLARS ACTION
UNDLR RGP 23
PEMAND S THFECK VES only 1T Gemandod m complam,
Jyes N
1X. This case {=]is not a refiling of s previously dismissed nction.
s wetliing of case number . previewsly dismissed by Judge
EIS
Lo VT
GATE
March #2 2006 TORNEY O RICOR
Vit

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
g
NAME (Type or print) M 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‘jLZCl;’lleN
standing of this Court’s gencral bar or ted Jeas -
by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14. E’D - 0 - - = -
TN
In the Matter of 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 ofthis 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:
R2p
DEAN M. TORIUMI
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

IIRM
Johnsen & Bell, Ltd.
SIGNATURE (Use clectronic signature il‘Wﬂmﬂh)
s/ Timothy R. Couture /( —
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
Mi W)
DEAN M. TORIUMI, ¢ LW, 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
Judge Ronald Guzman
COMPANY, L.L.C., Magistrate Judge Denlow
)
)
)
)
-vs- )
)
)
)
)
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.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. admits that it
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.
Answer: Based upon information and belief, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel
Company, L.L.C., denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s
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.
Answer: The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., denies the
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
NOW COMES Defendant, THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY,
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
Judge Ronald Guzman
COMPANY, L.L.C.,
)
)
)
)
-vs- )
)) Magistrate Judge Denlow
)
)
Defendant.
NOTICE OF FILING
TO: Bernard Roccanova
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
33 West Monroe Street, #2700
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 )
) Judge Ronald Guzman
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

Dr. Dean Toriumi's disability, 01/14/2004 - present

Dr. Dean Toriumi's disability, 01/14/2004 - present

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Dr. Dean Toriumi's disability, 01/14/2004 - present

Similar to Dr. Dean Toriumi's disability, 01/14/2004 - present (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Dr. Dean Toriumi's disability, 01/14/2004 - present