Bianco et al v. Nu U of Lincoln Park
Filing
15
MOTION by Plaintiffs Deborah Bianco, Frank Bianco for judgment and damages (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Austermuehle, Patrick)
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISON
FRANK BIANCO and DEBORAH BIANCO,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
-v)
)
NU U OF LINCOLN PARK d/b/a NU U MED SPA )
A Nevada Limited Liability Company
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, FRANK BIANCO and DEBORAH BIANCO (“Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys,
for their Complaint against Defendant, NU U OF LINCOLN PARK (“Defendant”), allege as
follows:
Parties
1.
Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Illinois and are the landlords in the
commercial lease at issue.
2.
Defendant Nu U of Lincoln Park (“Nu U”) is a Nevada limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Nevada, and is a tenant in the commercial lease at issue.
Jurisdiction and Venue
3.
The Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because
Plaintiffs and Nu U are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy, exclusive of
interest and costs, exceeds $75,000.00.
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
4.
Venue is proper is this district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)
because the contractual breaches and statutory violations giving rise to the claims occurred in
this district and division.
Allegations Common to All Counts
5.
Plaintiffs and Nu U entered into an Assignment and Modification to a Lease
Agreement (“Agreement”) on September 28, 2007, for the premises at 908 W. Armitage Ave.
Chicago, IL 60614 (“Leased Premises”.) A true copy of the original Lease and the Agreement
are attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.
6.
Paragraph F of the Agreement states that the Plaintiffs consented to the
assignment of the Lease from Purelight d/b/a Purelight Med Spa to Nu U of Lincoln Park d/b/a/
Nu U Med Spa.
7.
Paragraph 6 of the Agreement extended the term of the Lease for an additional
five years, until May 31, 2014. See Exhibit 2.
8.
Nu U of Lincoln Park is a dissolved limited liability company. See Exhibit 3.
9.
Under the Nevada Revised Statutes, the dissolution of a limited-liability company
does not impair any remedy or cause of action available to or against it or its managers or
members arising before its dissolution and commenced within 2 years after the date of the
dissolution. See NRS 86.505.
10.
In 2010, Nu U failed to make rent payments to Plaintiffs on time, and submitted
several checks which were returned for non-sufficient funds. Plaintiffs filed two five-day-notices
demanding full payment of overdue rent on January 19, 2010, February 11, 2010 and March 10,
2010, a copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5, and Exhibit 6. Nu U failed to
make these payments in a timely fashion, as well as several other rent payments through 2010.
2
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
11.
On January 12, 2011, Nu U wire transferred a $10,600 rent payment to Plaintiffs,
which was more than $2000 short of the necessary payment.
12.
Nu U failed to pay the remaining balance for the January rent payment and the
full balance of the February rent payment on time.
13.
On February 10, 2011, Nu U wire transferred a payment of $12,900 to Plaintiffs,
an amount which was $1011.44 less than the amount of the remaining January balance and
February rent payment, including interest and late fees.
14.
On March 22, 2011, Nu U wire transferred a payment of $12,200.00 to Plaintiffs,
an amount which was $985.21 less than the payment due and owing.
15.
Nu U failed to remit the overdue $985.21 balance.
16.
On April 6, 2011, Plaintiffs informed Nu U that it was overdue on the April 2011
rent payment and had not yet paid the shortage of $985.21 from the overdue March 2011 rent
payment. Nu U did not remit payment of the overdue balance.
17.
On April 28, 2011, Nu U made a $7,500 cash payment to Plaintiffs.
18.
On May 9, 2011, Nu U wire transferred a payment of $7,500 to Plaintiffs. This
payment covered the balance of the March 2011 and April 2011 rent payments, including interest
and late fees.
19.
On May 24, 2011, Nu U wire transferred a $6,000 payment to Plaintiffs, a portion
of the May 2011 rent payment. Nu U failed to pay the full May 2011 rent payment.
20.
Nu U failed to pay the June 2011 rent payment in its entirety.
21.
On June 22, 2011, Plaintiffs sent Nu U a copy of the signed five day notice, which
is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
22.
Plaintiff received a check from Nu U on July 5, 2011 in the amount of $7,000.
3
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
23.
The July 5, 2011 check in the amount of $7,000 was returned for non-sufficient
funds and Plaintiffs did not receive any additional checks for the remaining balance. See
Exhibit 8.
24.
On July 11, 2011, Nu U sent Plaintiffs a $14,000 check for the outstanding rent
payments.
25.
The July 11, 2011 check for $14,000 was returned for non-sufficient funds. See
Exhibit 8.
26.
On or about July 20, 2011, Plaintiffs met in person with Nu U to discuss the
outstanding rent balance. Nu U requested that Plaintiffs hold off on legal action until the end of
July and insisted that they would pay the outstanding balance by the end of July. Plaintiffs
agreed to postpone any legal action until August 1, 2011.
27.
Nu U has failed to pay the full rent for the months of June 2011, July 2011 and
August 2011 and a portion of the rent for February 2011 and May 2011 despite repeatedly
promising to do so. Nu U has not attempted to make any additional payments since the July 11,
2011 attempted payment.
28.
A portion of the rent for February 2011 and May 2011 and the full rent for June
2011, July 2011 and August 2011 remains unpaid along with interest and late fees, as provided
for under the Lease.
29.
Paragraph 39 of the Lease entitles Plaintiffs to an award of all costs and attorneys
fees expended as a result of Nu U’s breaches of the Lease. See Exhibit 1.
4
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
Count I – Breach of Contract
30.
Plaintiffs re-allege Paragraphs 1-29 herein.
31.
Nu U’s failure to pay rent and other monies owed as alleged above constitutes a
material breach of the Agreement and Lease.
32.
Plaintiffs have complied with all conditions and obligations under the Agreement
and Lease.
33.
As a direct and proximate result of Nu U’s breaches of contract, Plaintiffs have
suffered damages in excess of $75,000 for the outstanding rent payments, interest, late fees,
attorneys’ fees and costs, and the amount of future rent for the remaining term of the Lease.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Frank Bianco and Deborah Bianco (1) seek entry of judgment
in their favor and against Defendant, (2) payment of Nu U’s overdue rent along with interest and
late fees in an amount exceeding $40,000.00, (3) payment of Nu U’s expected rent payments
through the term of the lease in excess of $75,000.00, and (4) an award of Plaintiffs’ reasonable
court costs and attorneys’ fees, as provided for in the Lease.
Count II – Forcible Entry and Detainer
34.
Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege paragraphs 1-33 herein.
35.
Plaintiffs are entitled to immediate possession of the Leased Premises.
36.
Nu U is unlawfully withholding possession of the Leased Premises from
Plaintiffs.
5
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Frank Bianco and Deborah Bianco seek entry of judgment in
their favor, an order of possession of the Leased Premises, eviction of Nu U and an award of
Plaintiff’s reasonable court costs and attorneys’ fees, as provided for in the Lease.
FRANK BIANCO and DEBORAH BIANCO
By: ___s/Peter S. Lubin
One of their Attorneys
Vincent L. DiTommaso
Peter S. Lubin
Patrick D. Austermuhle
DITOMMASO ♦ LUBIN, P.C.
17W 220 22nd Street - Suite 200
Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois 60181
(630) 333-0000
6
_______
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:7
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:8
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:9
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:10
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:11
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:12
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:13
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:14
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:15
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:16
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:17
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:18
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:19
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:20
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:21
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:22
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:23
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:24
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:25
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:26
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:27
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:28
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:29
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:30
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:31
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:32
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:33
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:34
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:35
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:36
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:37
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:38
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:39
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:40
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:41
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:42
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:43
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:44
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:45
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-4 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:46
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:47
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:48
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:49
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:50
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:51
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-6 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:52
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:53
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:54
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-7 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:55
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:56
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:57
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:58
Case: 1:11-cv-05865 Document #: 1-8 Filed: 08/24/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:59
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?