Brama v. Target Corporation

Filing 152

MOTION by Plaintiff Christine Brama for judgment, MOTION by Plaintiff Christine Brama for Other Relief, MOTION by Plaintiff Christine Brama for sanctions against Defendant Target's Perjury/Withholding/Tampering with evidence in interrogatories (Exhibits) (nsf, )

.1t

!N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

&6
ljo t,rrff

.,'-T oE
.,*P8#gffi#rro.

CHRISTINE BRAMA,

Plaintiff,

No.

V.

14 CV 06098

Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim

TARGET CORPORATION, a Foreign
Corporation, dlbla TARGET STORES

Defendants.

& ASKING FOR SEVERE SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT TARGETS
peruuRVrwfxxOtotne /tlnaprm nG WITH EVIDENCE lN INTERROGATORIES
NOW COMES Christine Brama, Plaintiff filing Pro 5e, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF & ASKTNG FOR SEVERE SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT
TARGET FOR PERJURY/WITHHOLDING/TAMPERTNG

WITH EVIDENCE lN INTERROGATORIES,

pursuant to Fed. R. civ. p. 37(c), Fed. R. civ. p. 6o(bx3) and The criminal code of 1961 defines
Perjury, 720 lLcs5/32-2 and in support Plaintiff states the following:
BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability tawsuit, where Ptaintiff slipped and violently fell on Defendant
Target Corporation's entrance's flooded floors at 2939 West Addison Street in Chicago, lllinois
on

g/!3/tl.

A Complaint was served on Target through the Circuit Court of Cook County,

lllinois, on July 6,2oL4- Case No.: 2014

L

007086 and transferred by Target corporation to the

Federal Court on August 7, ZOLA- Case No. 14

- CV -

06098. Plaintiff s Complaint - DISCOVERY

B/;lL;Target's Answers to lnterrogatories were filed again by Defendant on 5lLLlt6, Exhibits
#1,

&#z,along with an Affidavit signed under oath by William Thom, Senior Paralegal, Target

.a.!

Corporation stating that the Answers in the lnterrogatories are true and correct on October 5,
2O!5, witnessed and signed by Notary Public Minnesota, Patricia A. Kordiak. Exhibit #2.
GENEMT TEGAL STANDARDS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(cX1)
Perjury: A person commits perjury when he intentionally lies under oath, usually while
testifying in court, administrative hearings, depositions, or in answers to interrogatories.
Perjury can also be committed by knowingly signing or acknowledging a written lega! document
(such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return)
that contains false information. Perjury Charges in tllinois is defined by 72O ILCS 5132-2.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(4Xa) - Evasive or Incomplete Disclosure, answer, or
Response. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or
response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.
lnherent Authority of the Court and Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 A district court has inherent
power to sanction a party who "has willfully abused the judicial process or otherwise conducted
litigation in bad faith." Secrease v. Western & Southern Life lns. Co., 800 F.3D 397 (7rH Cir.
20L5); Salmeron v. Enterprise Recovery Systems, lnc. 579F.3D787,79317rH Cir. 2009); see
Chambers v. NASCO, !nc., 501 U.S. 32, 48-49 (1991); Greviskes v. Universities Research Ass'n,
4L7 F.3D752,758-59 (7" Cir. 2oo5).
The broad interpretation of Rule 37 is that all offending parties are presumed to know
that tampering with the integrity of the judicial system, lying to the court, or engaging in other
deceptive or abusive practices are absolutely unacceptable regardless of the absence of a
specific court order to the contrary. ld.; see also Lightspeed Media corp. v. Smith, 20L5 WL
3545253. *5 (S.D. t11.2015) ("Although the language of Rule 37(b) requires violation of a judicial

order in order to impose sanctions, a formal, written order to comply with discovery is not
required, where a litigant engages in abusive litigation practices.")JFB HART Coatings, lnc. v.
AM Gen. LLC,764 F. Supp. 2d974,981-82 (N.D. !11.2011)(Although Rule 37 requires violation of
a judicial order before a court imposes sanctions, "courts can broadly interpret what
constitutes an order for purposes of imposing sanctions and a formal order is not required. This
broad latitude "stems from the presumption that all litigants...are reasonably deemed to
understand that fabricating evidence and committing perjury is conduct of the sort that is
absolutely unacceptable.")
ARGUMENT
Severe sanctions of dismissing Defendant Target's defense in this lawsuit

for

committing perjury in the lnterrogatories, intentionally lying to withhold the information from
Plaintiff, obstructing justice and committing discovery abuse, tampering with evidence. Exhibits
#1 page 4 atL2. & Exhibit #2. Defendant Target was alerted by Plaintiff through various
2

Motions to the Court (Exhibit #3, pages 18 & 19) that they were caught in their lie, and they
chose

to ignore Plaintiff by letting their lie continue for over 2 years, which

is arrogant,

willful.

Defendant knew their entrance was repaired before 5/2t174 after Plaintiff s 8lt3lL2 slip/fall.
Exhibit #3, pages 18 &

19.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) imposes a duty

initial disclosure or a response to an interrogatory "in

a

to supplement a Rule 26(a)

timely manner if the party learns that in

some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect." Fed. R. Civ.

P.

26(e); Colon-Millin v. Sears Roebuck De Puerto Rico, lnc. 455F.3D 30,37 11sr Cir. 2006).
Defendant Target has been caught in countless lies as PLAINTIFF'S (REVISED 1R7.1)
REPLY tN SUPPORT OF HER

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TCVCAIS. EXhibit #3. It,S thc big

lie by Defendant in their ANSWER to Plaintiff's lnterrogatories/Complaint Exhibits
L2.

fl

page 4 at

&#2 involving the entrance floor where Plaintiff's violent slip and fall occurred at 2939

West Addison Street in Chicago, lllinois

-

because entrance where she fell is considered

physical Evidence where her violent slip and fall occurred because of flooding from a sewer in

the middle of the entrance floor, Exhibit #4. which caused Plaintiff's multiple injuries that will
never heal and spinal surgery now on the horizon. Defendant's big lie cannot go unpunished
and severe sanctions of dismissing Target's defense in this lawsuit should apply and allow

Plaintiff judgment to prevail. Exhibit #1 page 4 at t2; Exhibit #2; Exhibit f3, pages 18 & page
19.
DEFENDANT,S INTENTIONAL BIG LIE UNDER OATH

The following ANSWER by Defendant Target

1S

PERJURY

to Plaintiff's lnterrogatories (Complaint)

question, Page 4 atL2, Exhibit #1, is one big intentional lie in which Target commits Perjury:

"L2.

State the name, last known address and job title of the person or entity that

repaired the front entrance of the facility alleged in the Complaint after the date of the
occurrence and state whether that person is employed by the Defendant.
ANSWER: The front entrance of the facility alleged in the Complaint did not need repair."
Exhibit #1. An Affidavit under Oath signed LOl5l15 by Target's William Thom to the truth of

this statement above accompanies Defendant Target's ANSWERS to lnterrogatories filed on

5ltLlL6.

Exhibits #2 and Exhibits #4 & #5.
TARGET,S ENTRANCE FLOOR WAS REPAIRED SOMETIME BEFORE

Target's entrance floor was repaired sometime before

months after Plaintiff

s

5/2U14

5lz!L4, approximately

16

slip and fall as photos of repaired entrance floor submitted show that

entrance was repaired. Exhibit #5. Defendant Target lied under oath, committing Perjury, by
stating "The front entrance of the facility alleged in the Complaint did not need repair." Exhibit
#1 page 4

att2; Exhibit #2; fExhibit #3; #Exhibit #4; Exhibit #5.

DEFENDANT TARGET TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE BY LYING IN ORDER TO WITHHOLD

INFORMATION FROM PIAINTIFF

Defendant withholding Evidence, Defendant lntentionally lying in ANSWERS

to Plaintiffs lnterrogatories, amounts to Defendant Tampering With Evidence, Obstruction of
Access

to Discovery, Perjury.
Plaintiffs lawsuit could have been settled a long time ago had Defendant Target

provided truthful answers and names of people or documents of who repaired the entrance
floors after Plaintiff's slip and fall as she requested, but instead Defendant Target chose to lie:
"The front entrance of the facility alleged in Complaint did not need repair." Exhibit

f

1 page 4

at 12 and sign an Affidavit under oath that that was true but it was one big intentional lie to
withhold information from Plairttiff of who repaired this entrance floor as evidence photos

show the floor was repaired sometime before 5/2LlL4. Exhibit #5.
TARGET COM M ITTED PERJURY INTENTIONALLY WITH HOLDING NAMES. TAM PERINGWITH
EVIDENCE. OBSTRUCT!NG ACCESS OF DISCOVERY

Target lied to Plaintiff and to the Court intentionally in lnterrogatories that the entrance

floor didn't need repair, so that they would not have to produce names/entity who repaired
entrance floor after Plaintiffs slip and fal! incident. Target did not want to produce these names

to Plaintiff because Plaintiff would then know who replaced the entrance floor and why it was
replaced - the sewer in the middle capped

off Exhibit ff4, Exhibit #5 and Target

knew this

would be the end to their defense in this lawsuit. Target chose to perjure themselves and
tamper/spoilage of/with evidence, Obstruct Access to Discovery instead of doing the right thing
and telling

truth and giving Plaintiffthe information she requested. Target's lie was intentional

and the Court must realize this and act accordingly by dismissing their defense in this lawsuit
and allowing Plaintiff to prevail. Defendant Target has lied to Plaintiff and to the Court too

often during this lawsuit and this lie should absolutely not go unpunished and be Defendant's
last lie because the Court should not allow this kind of Perjury by Defendant to continue. lt's

totally disrespectful and shamefulto the entire justice process.
Target's sewer in the middle of the entrance floor where Plaintiffs slip and fall occurred
was not being maintained properly by Target because it was covered in wal!-to-wall carpeting,
so Target

just ignored it. The constant flooding from a sewer in the middle of entrance every

time it rained (per Target employee), reared its ugly head by puckering up the entire entrance
and revealing the imprint of a sewer underneath the wall-to-wall carpeting. Evidence. Exhibit
#4.
The entrance floors were replaced before 5l2L/L4 Exhibit
5

f5

(leaving the exact same

dangerous un-treaded threshold intact that Target employees deemed dangerous). This is 15

months after Plaintiffs slip and fall of Sl13lL2. Defendants Target/Sedgwick KNEW the
entrance floors were repaired, but decided to lie that entrance didn't need repaired.
CONCLUSION
lF Defendant produced name/entity

that repaired entrance floor Plaintiff requested in

these lnterrogatories to Defendant as they should have

- the documents would

show that the

entrance floor desperately needed repair as puckered up photos show and was repaired after

Plaintiffs slip and fall as evidence photos show. Exhibit #4, Exhibit #5.
Defendant Target intentionally lied in tnterrogatories. Target did not want Plaintiff to
have names of people who repaired entrance Plaintiff requested of them and by withholding

this evidence of the entrance floor documents from Plaintiff and the Court and avowing the

truth of the affidavit signed by William Thom that the statement made by him, Sedgwick, Target
was true and correct, when it was actually a big lie; in doing so, Defendant Target Tampered

With Evidence, Obstructed Access to Discovery and committed Perjury. Target/Sedgwick lied
because they knew if they gave Plaintiff names/entity of who repaired entrance and why, they

would have no defense and the lawsuit would be over and settled.
Defendant Lying. Signing an Affidavit. Lying some more'
Defendant Target's entrance ftoor at 2939 West Addison Street in Chicago, lllinois,

lS

Evidence. Defendant Target tampered with evidence and severe sanctions should be
administered by this court against Defendant Target. A severe sanction of dismissing Target's
defense in this tawsuit for perjury and Tampering With Evidence, Obstructing Access of
Discovery to hide their negligence and the truth from Plaintiff and from the Court would be

appropriate and just, and allow Plaintiff to prevail in this lawsuit and give her the justice she
deserves. These lnterrogatories were to be answered truthfully and names were to be
provided to Plaintiff and they were not. This was done intentionally to deceive the Court and
Plaintiff and Defendants were made aware of this lie through Plaintiff's countless Motions to

the Court that the entrance floors were repaired before 5l2L/L4, Exhibit #3 for over 2 years,
but Target chose to ignore it to keep their lie alive, signing Affidavit on tO/51L5 that "The front

entrance of the facility alleged in the Complaint did not need repair." A lie. Exhibits #4 & #5.
Defendant Target and their self-insured Sedgwick's insurance company attorney, Eileen
Letts have robbed Plaintiff of 6 plus years of her life with their lies, greed and their racist
strategies; with distracting chronic pain

from multiple injuries from slip and fallthat will

never heal and prepping for spine surgery, have distracted her from signs of a detrimental

health crisis. Defendant's perjury in the lnterrogatories deserves a severe sanction of
dismissing Defendant Target's defense, allowing Plaintiff to prevail.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Brama,

filing Pro Se, respectfully prays that this

Honorable Court grants Plaintiff Motion for judgment and any other relief the Court deems fit,
and allowing Plaintiff to prevail by dismissing Defendant Target's defense. Pursuant to Federal
Rule 37(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(bX3), 72O tLCS5l32-2

Cristine Brama, Plaintiff, Pro se
Cristine Brama, Plaintiff, pro se
4020 West Barry Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60641
(7731s4s-3734

llSl-$-*"uc
IN T}IE UN]TED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTINE BMMA,

Case No. 14 CV 06098
V.

District Judge:
Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

TARGET CORPORATION,

a

DEFENDANT TARGET CORPORATION'S ANSUYERS
TO PLANTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

NOW COMES Defendant, TARGET CORPORATION, by and through
its
attomeys, GREENE AND LETTS, and pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil procedure,
submits its answers to the following interrogatories and
states as follows:
INTERROGATORIES

1'

State the name, address, position and titte with the Defendant
of the individual
answering these lnterrogatories on behalf of the Defendant.
ANSWER: These Answers are those of Defendant Target
Corporation. The

Answers were prepared by Senior Paralegal, William Thom
at Target Corporate

service, lnc. with the assistance of defense counsel. The address
is: 1000 Nicollet Ma[,
TPS 3155, Minneapolis, MN SilOg.

State the full name and last known address of each person
who witnessed or
claims to have witnessed the occurelle aileged in the
compraini,
whether
they are currenfly emproyees of TARGET coRlonniror.r.

;;

Exhibit

*
1

,'----------------T
t

ANSWER:

,
I
\
\

None.

State the full name and current residenee address of each person not named in
No. 2 above who was present andlor claims to irave been present at
i1lerrogatory
the scene immediately before, at the time of, and/or immediately'after the
oe_currence, and whether they are currentty employees
TARGET

of

coRPoRATtoN.

"\
AN S\ER:
Wilfiam\Raul Garcia, Target employee
.foef

.falrua

L Fierro, Target employee

I
Edi,conJonathan Castenada , Target employee
I
Kiorel Hammonds (no longer employed by Target corporation)

V'alerie Konkolewski, Target employee
Leketria Hartfield (no longer emproyed by Target corporation)
Charish Tumer, Target employee

4'

lmmediately prior to the time of_the plaintitf's alleged occurrence,
did you or any
agent or employee of TAFIGET CORPORATION hlve any knowledge
ot i.rr". o?
defects to the front entrance of the facility where the plaintiff
fell?

ANSWER: No.

5'

lf you answer to the preceding interrogatgry is
I lh9_affirmative, please state: (a)
How you or any agent or employee 6t rAner coRponAfrcjr.r
acquired such
knowledge. (b) How long you'knew that the situation or condition
existed prior to
the alleged occurrence.

ANSWER: Not applicabte.

6'

lf TARGET CoRPORATION had any established procedure
in the five years prior
to'the'date'otr'the occ'tfirence forttrsinspection of :the front entrance
oi the faciiiiy
alleged in the Complaint, please state:

(a)

A description of the inspection procedure;

2

(b)
(c)

(d)
(e)

The date when the last inspection was made prior to the date of the
accident;
The. name, iob title, last known address and telephone number of
each person who participated in such inspection;

A description qf what said inSBeqtion inctuded; and

The conditions disclo_sed_by the last inspection before the alleged
incident on Auqust iB. 20i2.

ANSWER: The inspection of the front entrance of the facility alleged
is covered in the attached policies. This information can

wo*ing at this particular location.

7'

b

in the comptaint
obtaineoflyiarget erprov"es

Wele any other person injured in the five years prior to the date of the occurrence
at the scene (the front entrance of the tacitityl as alleged in the Complainti
rf
for each inilry state the name and last known addreis of tlre in;rr"d p"rron,
t-h"
date of the iniury, and in generel, the crause of injury and the n*tur" of tne
infuoy-

*,

ANSWER:

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and burdensome.
However, without waiving said objection, there were no other injuries
at the
scene of this incident.

8'

For each injury specified in lnterrogatory Number 7, state the names,
last known
addresses and job titles of any persons with knowledge of the injuries
and causes
thereof.

ANSWER;

9'

N/A

As to any policy of insurance which covers the Defendant, state the
name of the
insurer, the type of poticy, the policy number, the effective p"rioJ"no
the maximum
liability, for each and every such policy, including excess insurance,
umbrella, and
seif-insured risk pooi.

ANSWER: ACE usA, xsLc2gTZaolP; Term 2/lrzooz-1rg1l?Q14;
$4,8 million

10'

Were you or anyone acting

your authority responsible for the repair,
maintenance and inspeeiion br-under
ffre front entrance.of ihe flciiity-*i.,"r" ihe aiieged
incident occurred? lf not, please state who or what
,".ponsible for
the maintenance and inspection of the front entrance of ine facility
"g.n./
where the
alleged incident occurred.'

*".

3

ANSWEH:

No, however the Store Facilities Technician would be responsible for
minor
repairs. Targg! Corporation employees are trained to be vigil"nt r"g"rding
potentially hazardous conditions.

11

'

lf the Defendant contracted with another person or entity for work
to be done to the
front entrance of
facility area alleged in the Compdini a;; such contract was
.the
in etfect on the date of the.occurrence alleged in thf Co*pl"int, state
the name
and last known address of the other partieslo the contract and the duties
ol each
party under the contract and state whether tne contraJ-*m-in';rtid;;;;;
now has the contract or a copy thereof.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory amverly broad, burdensome,
and
not reasonably limited in time and scope.

''2'

State the name, last known
?dol":g and job. title of the person or entity that
repaired the front eRtrance of the facility alleged in the Comfraint
after the date of
the occurrence and state whether that persoi is employed iril" Defendant.

ANSWER: The front entrance of the facility alleged in the Complaint
did not need repair.

13'

lf the Defendant contends that-some other person or entity is responsible
for the
installation or condition of the front entrance area of the ticlllty
as alleged in the
Gomplaint, please state the name and last known address
of this person or entity
and state the basis for the Defendant's contention.

ANSWER: Notappticabte.

14'

lf the Defendant contends that some other person
or entity was responsible for the
maintenance and repair of the front entrance area or tne
tacilit;r alleged in the
Complaint, please state the name and last known address
or saio person or entity
and the basis of the Defendant,s contention.

ANSWER: Notappticabte.

15'

Were there any repofts or statements submitted by any
individual regarding the
injury to the Plaintiff(s) or the condition of the
fremiies invotved and referred to in
the complaint? lf the answer is in the afiirmative, ptease
state the names,
addresses a!.q gT,ployment position of each individuai
rror"itti"g said report, the
fiamc ano' acldress of_the person or company who pr"r"ntiv'hi,
porr"ssion oi
said report, the date of each repod and attach-a copy of
said ?"port(r) hereto.

ANSWER: Yes, the employees

named in the answer to interrogatory 2havesubmitted
lncident Reports which are attached. Ptaintiff
rru-itted a written

"i.o

4

V

handwritten statement to a Target employee regarding the incident.
attached.

16'

lt

is

What is the name and last known address of each person or entity having
an
ownership or least [sic] interest in the front entrance area of the facility
which iJ the
subject matter.of this Comptaint, on the date specified in the Cornpl"int, and
state
the nature of the interest on the date specified in the ComplainihnO state
when
said interest was acquired.
Target Corporation.

rt
What is the name and tast known address of each person or entity having
control
or possession of the front entrance.area of the facility specified in the
C6mplaini on in"
date specified in the Complaint, and state the extent it iucrr

17'

"ontrJ

ANSWER:

*

io.."rsion?

Defendant objects to this interrogatory's asseftion of the terms ,,control,
or
"possession" as they assume legal conctusionl.

18'

Please describe in detail any-wamings or signals, either written
or oral, given by
the Defendants to the Plaintitf or othdrs wrro-mignl o" ,pon liie premises,
prior to
the alleged occunence.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, burdensome,
and
not reasonably limited in time and scope.

i9'

Pleesc siatc whdt pr€eaufiOns, if ahy, were iaken by you
or any ageni or empioyee
of the Defendant on the date of, and prior to the Plaintiff's
atiegeo occurrence to
prevent injuries.

ANSWER: Defendant obiects to this interrogatory as overty broad,
burdensome, and
as iloi reasonably limited ln timc end seopc.

20.

Do you have any information tending to indicate:

(a)

That any plaintitf was, within the five years immediately prior
to the
occuirence, confined in a hospltai anilor eiiftic, treeted by
e
physician and/or other health professional, or x-rayed
for any ,"".on
other than personal injury? lf so, state each plaintiff so involved,
the
name and address of each such hospital and/or clinic, physician,
technician and/or other health care professionat, the approximate

5

date of such confinement or service and state the reason for
such
confinement or seruice.
(b)

That any plaintiff has euffered any serious pe.rsona! injury and/or
illness prior to the date of the occurrence? lf so, state the name
of
each plaintiff so involved and state when, where and how he or
she

was injured and/or ill and describe the injuries and/or iltness suffered;
(c)

Thai any piaintitr has suffered any serious personat injury and/or
illness since the date of the occurrence? lf so, state the name
of

each plaintitf so involved and state when, where and how he or she
was injured and/or illand describe tfe inluries and/or illness
suffered;
(d)

That any plaintiff has ever filed other suit for his or her own personal
injuries? lf so, state the name of each plaintitf so invotved and
state
the court and caption in which fiied, the yearfiled, the tifle and
docket
number of the case.

A!',ITWER:

(a) None other than what has been provided
by plaintiff,s counsel.
(b) Plaintiff was in an MVA on October 7, 1993
and admitted to the hospital for neck
pain. she submitted her craim to Ailstate rnsurance.

(c) None other than what has been provided by plaintiff,s
counsel.
(d) Defendant has notiee of othcr elaims:
(i) October 1,2AOT
commercial GL
carrier: State Farm
claim #19Bi27A414
lnsured: John Tarchala
injury: bronchitis/allergic reaction to dust
(ii) August 2,1997
med pay/homeowners
carrier: American States lns Co
claim #SS90101148001
lnsured: Bensenvilte park District
injury: soft tissue left foot

(iii) October 11, 1998
commercial GL

6

carrier: Broadspire
claim #565049900
lnsured: Sears Roebuck & Co
injury: upper respiratcry infection

21'

Were any photographs, movies and/or videotapes taken of the scene
of the

occurrence or of the persons involved? lf so, state the date or dates
on which such
photograpfis, movies and/or videotepes w€re iaken, ihe
subject ih6r€6f, who now
has custody of them, and the name, address, and occupation
and employer of the
person taking them.

ANSWEH:

Yes, there are videos from August 13, za1;.The Target Ap Team
Member
who pefrncieci with vide6 is Ecidic G6mez, who ean be reacheci thiough
Dei6nciant,s
undersigned counsel. Two photographs were taken of the front
entranceway and the
Target attorney has custody of the video and the photographs.
Target is the employer.

22'

Have vou (or has anyone acting on your behalf) had any
conversations with anv
person at any time with regard to the manner in
which the occurence complained
of occurred, or have you overheard any statements made by any person
at any
time with regard to the injuries complained of by plaintitf or
ih" manner in which
the occurrence complained of occurred? tf the answer to this
interrogatory is in
ffic affii'mativ-6, stat€ the iollowing:

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)

The date or dates of such conversation and/or statements;
The prace of such conversation and/or statements;
All persons present for the conversations andor statements;
The matters and things stated by the person in the conversations
and/or statement;
Whether the conversation was oral, written and/or recorded;
and
Who has possession of the statement if written and/or recorded.

ANSWER: Objection, the nature of these conversations occurred
with

attorneys and is protected by attorney_client privilege.

23'

Target,s

List the names and last known addresses of all other persons
(other than yourself
and persons hereiofore ifsted or speeffiealfy exeludetljrufio
hiivc imowtecige 6f thc
facts of said occurrence or of the injuries and damages
following therefrom, and
whether they are currentry emproyees of the Defendant.

ANSWER:

None at this time. rnvestigation continues.

7

24'

Do you have statements from any witness
other than yourself or, if a corporation,
of anyone other than an otficer, director,
managing agent or foreman? lf so, give
the name and last known address of each
such witness, the date of said statement
and state whether such statement was
written or orar.

ffiffi::
25.

None other than the handwritten statement
by rhe ptaintiff. tnvestigarion

owners affiliated
IH:j::J,*:r,,y ,"19l,":: of aflof entity, *n"n it with the entity TARGET
**'"-"0,'inl ffi;:;
:"""T:H]:Ll111,ls th: type
agent, principalplace of irnvestments, and
name and address
of the accountant for

said entity.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this interrogatory
as overly

as not reasonably limited in time and scope.

26.

broad, burdensome, and

Does TARGET coRpoRATroN have
an ownership, property management
interest, or

any'oiher affiiiatioii with ihe froni enirance
area of the faciiity as alleged
in the Plaintiff's complaint. lf so, describe
the interest, when it was established,
and the individuals within the organization
that have knowledge of the facts as
alleged in plaintiff,s complaint.

ANSWER: Defendant objects to this inte'ogatory
as overly

broad, burdensome, and
as not reasonably limited in time and scopel
wit'hout waiving said objection, Target
corporation
owns and manages the front enirance
area of the facirity.

I

Respectfully Submitted,

TARGET CORPQRATION

/s/ Eileen M. Letts
Eileen M. Letts

Eileen M. Letts
Joelle h{. Shabat
GREENE AND LETTS
55 West Monroe Street
Suite 600
Chicago, lL 00609
312-846-1100
XITARGET coRPoMTIoMBBAIuA'0158'00019\DlscovER'tt0&0Gi5

I

Targets Answers ro tntenogatories.docx

STATH OF MTNNESOTA t

couNTY oF HENNEPTN

)

SS.

)

William Thom, Senior Paralegal of T21961 C+rpOrate $e.rrriees, lne., after
being d,*ty
sworn on oath, states that he is an authorized srgnatory of Target Corporation,
a

Defendant in the above-entitled cause, and that he verifies the foregoing
Oefend*n(
Target Corporation's Answers fo Plarntiffs lnterrogatones and on
behalf

of

said

Detendant and is duly authorized to do so, that certm of the matters
st*ted in the
foregoing Defendant Target Corporafian's Answe rs to Ptaintiffs lntorrogafones
are not
wtthtn the personal knowledge of signatory and that signatory ls informed
that there rs
no officer or Managing Agent of the Defendant who has personal knowledge
of such
matters; that the facts stated in said Answers have been assembled
by authorrzed
ernployees and counsel of Defendant, and signatory is informed
that the facts stated rn
sard Answers are true and correct^

Senror Paralegal
Target Corporation

$ubscriped and sworn to hefore nre
thts*"!.,_ tlay of iil f"i**.;r r-"-.. _*_-.*, 2015

i'('r"r- i Public ,/{ i)' ,', ,. ,t rl
Notary

(.",.

tr(h;J.'' *'$*'

REEEIVHD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN OISTRICT OF

FIB 0 1 8017

IILII{OIS

EASTERN DIVISION

^

CHRISTINE BRAMA

_ TH0trrAs o. BRU"mil!

cLEm(, u.s. DtsTRtcT
Case No.: 14-CV-06098

Plaintiff,

District Judge:
Honorable Marvin

Vs.

E.

Aspen

TARGET CORPORATION,

Defendant.
PI.AINTIFF'S (REVISED 1R7.1} REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR SUMMARY TUDGMENT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Christine Brama, filing pro se and pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 of

the lllinois District Court Rules for the Northern District of lllinois, submits her Reply in
Support of Her Motion for Summary Judgment and in support states as follows:
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARGUMENT- l. through Vll.:

I.

thru 23

DEFEND.ANYS RESPONSE FAILS TO COMPLY

wtTH LOCAL RULE 55.Ub)
a. (Fact #6), b. lFacttATl, c. (Fact *481, d. (Fact fi49)
e. (Fact #50), f. (Fact #51), g. {Fact #52}, h. (Fact #53},
i. (Fact

#5a).

II.

Pages 3

DEFENDANTS DISAGREEMENTWITH
PISINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF FACTS
i.(Fact #5), ii. (Fact #7)
iii. (Fact #8), iv. (Fact #9), v. (Fact #10), vi. (Faa #11)
vii. (Fact #12)
viii. (Fact f13), ix. (Faa #14), x. (Fact #15)
xi. (Fact #17), xii. (Fact #18), xiii. (Fact #19)
xiv. (Fact #20), xv. (Fact #21)
xvi. (Fact #22), xvii. (Fact #23), xviii. (Fact #24),
xix. (Fact #25)
xx. Fact *771,n<i. {Fact #29}

Page 3

Page 3
Papc 4

Page 5
Page 5,7

D;aa'7
. vbv,rv

I

Page 8

ahi(ir eA

counr

)o(ii.(Fact *30), xxiii. (Faa #31), uiv. (Faa #32)
xxv. (Fact #33), xxvi. (Fact f!14), nvii. (Fact f35)
xxviii. (Fact #36), xxix. (Fact #37), ru<. {Fa* #38)
xxxi. (Fact f39i, m<ii. {Faa #4oi

Page
Page
Page
Fage

xuiii.

Page 13
Page 14
Page 15

(Fact *t41), xniv. (Fact lt42)
xxxv. (Fact tf46), xxxvi. (Faa tf47)

III.
IV.
V.
VI.

vll.

ruxvii. (Faa #50)

9
10
11

12

PLAINTIFF HAS DEMONSTRATED PROXIMATE CAUSE

WITH PROPER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
DEFENDANT'S WILLFUL AND WANTON MISCONDUCT
DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL NOTICE

Page 15,16,17
Page L7,18,19
Page 19,2Q21,22

TARGETS DUTY WAS TO EXERCISE ORDINARY CARE AND
TARGET BREACHED THAT DUWTO PIAINTIFF,
A BUSINESS INVITEE (Faa #5)

Page22,23

coNclusroN

Page 23
TAB|"E OF AUTHOS|TIFS

Caseq

Lough y ENSF Ry. Co., 988 N.E. 2d, 7A90, 1094-95

App. ct.2013)
Coffee v. Menard, lnc., No. 73 C 2726, 2015 WL 399049, ot *4
(N.D. lll. Morch 25, 2075)
Adkins v. Sorah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr., SlM N,E. Zd, 73A, lg4
(ilt.1e8e)
Estate of Burns v. Williomson, No. ll-CViOZA, ZOls
WL /U65088, ot *12 (C.D. lll. tuly 21, 2OtS)
Kirvvan v, Lincolnshire-Riverwoods Fire prot. Dist. Sll N.E. Zd,
7259, UA \il. App.Ct.2004)
Reed v. Wal-Mort Stores,lnc.700 N.E. 2d, ZlZ, 275
(tll. App. Ct. 1998)
Pavlikv. Wal-Mort Stores, tnc. 323 tll. App. 3d, 106A 7SS N.E.2d,
7OO7 Fst Dist.20o7)
Vojos vs. K-Mart Corp. i72 tll. App. 3d,544,727 N.E. Zd, 397
(sh Dist. zooo)
Krebs v. Volley Boptist Church, lnc., No. 2-14-0243, ZOl4 WL
4942337, AT *5 (lll. App. &. Act. t,2014)
Zuppardiv. Wol-Mort Stores, tnc. TZO F. jd,644, Ag (f, Circ. 2OL4)
Donoho v. O'Connell's, lnc., L48 N.E. Zd,4J4, tWl (ttl. lg5g)
Piotrowskiv. Menord, lnc. No. 73 C 5S7Z, Z0l5 WL 5139415, ot *3
(N.D. lll. August 37,2015)
(tLL.

Page 15
Page 16,17
Page

1"7

Page 17
Page 17
Page 19,21,22,23'
Page 20,21,22

Page20,22

Page2l,23
Page22
Page 23

Page 23

CHICAGO MUNICIPAL CODE

City of Chicago Municipal Code 511-16-020, Chapter 1g-29-700

Page 16,17,L9,22

ARGUMETTIT

DEFENDANTS RESPONSE FAI|sTO COMPLYWITH IOCAL RULE 56.1(b}
Local Rule 56.1(b) requires that Defendant, as the non-moving part% respond to each

numbered paragraph in Plaintiffs 55.1(aX3) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.

LR

56.1(bX3) and to admit or deny/dispute Plaintiffs statement. Defendant has not complied

with this requirement in the following:
a.

At #5 Defendant neither admits nor denies fact #5.

b. At fact #47, Defendant omits numbering it as #47.
c.

Defendant incorrectly lists fact #48 as "47" and "admit''to content of fact #49.

d.

Defendant incorrectly lists Plaintiffs fact f49 as "b I a n k", and "admit'to correct

content of #49.
e. Defendant incorrectly lists Plaintiffs fact #50 as n#&o and "deny content of #50.

f.

Defendant incorrectly lists Plaintiffs fact #51 as "*49'and oadmif content of f51.

g.

Defendant incorrectly lists Plaintiffs fact f52 as "#5Oo

and'admit'to content of #52.

h,

Defendant ineorreetly lists Plaintiffs fact #53 as "#5L"

and'admif'to content of #53.

i.

Defendant incorrectly lists Plaintiffs fact #54 as"52" and "admit'to content of #54.

ll.
i.

DETENDANTS DEAGREEMENTWTT{ pLAtNTtFpS STATEMENT OF FACTS

Defendant neither admits nor denies fact

f6.

This fact shows that as she shopped, paid

for groceries, Defendant had plenty of time before Plaintiff re-entered store for a refund to put
rubber mats, cones, signs of caution warning customers that the entrance was slippery.

ii.
of

Defendant denies fac,t#7 as irrelevant and imrnaterial but does not deny the validity

it. lt is relevant that it rained a lot before Plaintiff got to the bus stop.

Defendant had

Constructive Notice to put rubber mats, cones, signs warning customers entrance was slippery.

iii.

Defendant denies fact #8 and claiming it's irrelevant and not material, but do not

deny the validity of fact #8. Plaintiff disagrees. Target committed a consurner frauci by charging

Plaintiff regular price for an advertised sale item. lF Plaintiff was not overcharged on this sale

item by Target, she would not have re-entered store for a refund and therefore would not have
fallen and sustained muhiple injuries.

iv.

Defendant denies fact *f9 and incorrectly quotes Plaintiff's 4-page Complaint of

8l2Ll72 as "8|LULZ". Also,

see Poge 2,

at ll9, Plaintiffs Stotement of undisputed Facts which

Plaintiff clearly guotes from her 8l2Lh2 4-page Complaint, which she cites correctly with the
correct date of the complaint, is obviously not the Complaint at Law Defendant suggests it is
then denies

it."

ln her 8/2L/L2 4-page Complain! Plaintiff states: "l quickly scanned the

entryway up and down with my eyes and everything seemed ok. As I stepped inside onto the

floor with my right foot, my right foot slipped on something very very slippery, slipping to the
left, knocking toward my left foot and I started to fall." Plointiffs 4-page S/21/12 Comploint
page 7, para 2, lines 1-6;

Ex.

5.

Plaintiffs daughter's witness statement,

Ex. 5, was

additional

evidence, and was cited to the record from the S/21/12 4-poge Comploint, and should be
admissible, competent evidence to be considered by the Court for a Summary Judgment ruling.

v.

Defendant denies fact #10, which Plaintiff refers to in her -page handwritten

Complaint, as "irrelevant and not material" but they do not deny the validity of fact #10.

vi.

Defendant denies fact #11 and incorrectly quotes Plaintiff as sa,ving "8!L2h2

Document'' which Plaintiff clearly states 8l2L/L2 Complaint. See Poge 3, Plointiff's Statement

of Undisputed Focts. Defendant claims it's irrelevant, immaterial but does not deny its validity.

vii.

Defendant denies fact #12 claiming it's not material or relevant but does not deny

the validity of fact *L2. "After hitting her right knee on the ground, Plaintiffs head and neck
went forward, then sharply back. Plaintiff cioes not remember hitting her head."

Ex. C,

p. i32,

Lines 77-24; Ex. C, p.57, 77-78.

viii.

At #13, Defendant denies, and omits "812L/12" Plaintiffs Complaint then

untruthfully states: "Plaintiff never stated that she felt water coming up from under the
carpeting." Plaintiff disagrees: At #13, Plaintiff states: "Plaintiff smetled a strong odor of sewer,
as if she were lying on

top of a sewer, and felt water coming up from under the carpeting and

worried that her wounded knee was soaking in that sewer-smelling tiquid, and about her
allergies." This is verified in Plaintiffs 8/21/12, 4-page Comploint, (8 days ofter the occident) p.
1, pora. 3, first 3 lines and lost

4 sentences.

Ex. C

p. 67,

lines 27-22;

p.63lines 76-20. Four

years after accident, at 3/16/15 Deposition, Defendant asked Plaintiff: "And flooded,
what do

you mean by flooded? I have mv own definition. but I want vours." Plaintiff gave her
a

"definition" of "flooding" at first, then showed her by motioning with her hands as if
she was on the ground saying, "gornglite this and water is coming up from underneath.
that,s

flooding."

ix.

Ex. C, Poge 63, lines

At#

1,4,

5-7.

Fact #13 should be considered

for Summary Judgment.

Defendant denies Plaintiffs statement claiming it's not relevant or material,

but does not deny the validity of fact #14 in which she testified to and wrote in her

glzutz

Complaint that she screamed after she hit her right knee. A guard is seen immediately
running toward her in Surveillance Video and stands above her head on the ground.

x.

Defendant denies fact #16 claiming the video does not establish that plaintiff hit her

head. Plaintiff disagrees. There are 2 views of the video and the video in the vestibute clearly
shows Plaintiff hitting her head.

xi.

Defendant denies fact #t7, saying it's irrelevant and immaterial, but does not deny

the validity of fact #17. Plaintiff anci her daughterwatched video for first time and saw she

hit her head which is cited to the record from Deposition and a witness statement provided.

5.

Ex.

Defendant claims statement made to her by Dr. Salta is irrelevant and "hearsay'', atthough

Plaintiff testified to that fact at the Deposition, and cited it to the record at fact #17.

xii.

Defendant denies fact #18 is material or relevant and claims "the allegations

plaintiff asserts here are highly inconsistent with the video in question".

xiii.

Defendant denies fact #19. Plaintiff disagrees: Defendant Target's Vestibule

Surveillance Video clearly shows Defendant's employees have total control of the entrance on

their property and total control of an injured Plaintiff, along with an unidentified person who
may be a Target employee. Plaintiff was in no danger of getting hit by a train, a bus or a car,

yet Target employees knowing an ambulance was on the way, hurriedly get rid of ptaintiff out
of the entrance so other customers would not witness the accident and for a Target employee

to take pictures.

xiv.

Defendant denies fact #20, claiming "the allegations plaintiff asserts here are highly

inconsistent with the video" and it's not material or relevant'. Ptaintiff disagrees. The vestibule
surveillance video shows clearly the yanking the dropping of plaintiff and yanking her back up
and captures Plaintiffs glasses protruding outward to one side as she testified to it viewing

video at Deposition. lt's relevant to show how her nose was re-broken after hitting her head.

xr/.

Defendant denies fact f21 claiming it is irrelevant and not material. Defendant does

not deny the validity of fact #21. "After Plaintiff was yanked up, Plaintiff exclaimed,
embarrassed! For a $1.49 I nearly killed myself!"

'?ll

,,1,m

so

my frozen foods are going to defrost.,,

Had Target not committed a consurner fraud by charging full price on an advertised sale item,

Plaintiff would not have re-entered the store for the rerunci or feit embarrassment that
she re-entered the store for it and nearly killed herself by stepping unknowingly onto a

deceivingly sewer flooded floor and acknowledged in her 4-page 8/21/12 Comploint page 3 ot
7); and page 2 para 7, and should be considered for summary Judgment ruring.

xvi.

Defendant denies tact.#22 saying it's irrelevant and not material. Defendant does

not deny the validity of fact *22 astestified at Deposition. At #22 Plaintiff states: "With shocks
running down her back into the right side of her head, as she tried to straighten out...', ifs a fact

that Defendant allowed this yanking of a seriously injured Plaintiff, for the sake of getting her
out of the entrance, causing more physical damage to her.

xvii.

Defendant denies fact #23 stating that it "contains inadmissible hearsay'' "not

supported by any written statement that has been showi-r to the decisiorr makers" and is

"immaterial". Plaintiff states: "After plaintiff was up off the ground, a Target employee
manager, Valerie told Plaintiffthat they called an ambulance and it was on its way to the store.,,

Plaintiff clearly states this in her S|ZUL2 4-page handwritten Complaint p. 2, poro 2,

7i

sentence and testified to at the Deposition.

xviii.

Defendant denies fac.#24 claiming these facts are not materiat or relevant, but does

not deny the validity of the fact that "City of Chicago Police Department Event euery lists the
call for an ambulance was place at "L4:5s:32", or 2:55:32pm on August L3, zaL2. Ex. 6.,

xix.

Defendant denies fact #25 claiming it's not relevant or materiat, but do not denythe

validity of act #25. Plaintiff testified, Target employee security guard, knowing an ambulance
was called should never have yanked Plaintiff up like that with an unidentified person, probably

a customer, she

felt de-dignified from the yanking because they didn't know what her injuries

were from the fall; caused more injuries to her; EMTs would not be abie to property assess

the situation, as she was sitting on the bench when they arrived. Plaintiff cited
all to the record accordingly and this fact should be considered for Summary Judgment.

xx.

Defendant denies fac"#27 claiming it is irrelevant and not material, also that it

is "inadmissible hearsat/' "not supported by any written statement that has been shown

to the decision makers and should not be considered by the court in consideration of

a

summary judgment ruling." Plaintiff disagrees. Plaintiff verifies this statement in her

handwritten 4-page 8/21/12 Comploint page 2, paro. 2, ond 5 and cites according to the record
of the Deposition at fact #27: "Target's Manager, Valerie, tried over and over again to deter
Plaintiff from going to the Emergency Room with EMTs, even in front of the EMTs as they rolled

their eyes at me e'Jery tinre she would say: "You could refuse to go with them to the ER.' "f!l
have someone replace all your groceries for you, then you could go home. you don't have to go

with the ambulance." 'You could refuse the ambulance, you don't have to go with EMTs.,'
S/21/12 Comploint poge 2, paro 6.

roti.

Defendant denies fact #29 claiming it's not material or relevant and contains

inadmissible hearsay''. Plaintiff disagrees. She does not need testimony from the E.R. doctor
as Defendant suggests, since Tetanus/Diphtheria shots are given for a contaminated substance

absorbing/contaminating into a cut/skln. Plaintiff wearing pants, suffered a srnall cut that bled,

the pants were not torn and nothing but fitthy sewer smelling water penetrated them
causing a rash to form all around knee. Ex. C, p. 164, lines 6-9. Attoched is a copy of the E.R. bitt

for the Tetanus shot,

Ex-

#75 ond #75o. tn Plointiffs 4-poge hondwritten 8/21/12 Camploint,

fhe EMT states to her: 'Your injured knee was soaking in that floor from God knows what was
in there, and you need to have it checked." This is an important fact thai shoulci be consideretJ

for Summary Judgment.

xxii. Defendant

denies fact #30 as irrelevant, not material and hearsay not supported by

any written statements that have been shown to the decision makers." plaintiff disagrees.

Plaintiffs handwritten 4-page 8/21/12 Complaint states how the right side of her head was
in pain, Poge 7, porograph 2, lost sentence, page 2, paro. 6 and testified to this at Deposition,
Ex. C,

p. 769 lines 18-24;

xxiii.

Ex. C,

p. I70,lines 7-5.

Defendant denies fact #31 as "inadmissible hearsay which is not supported by any

written statements that have been shown to the decision makers". Plaintiff disagrees. plaintiff
submitted to the Court her Undisputed Facts Statement with a witness statement from her
daughter, who knew the specifics of Plaintiffs accident since 8/L3/12, and of the Security
Guard saying: "l knew this was gonna happen one day, because that entrance always floods

when it rains." Plaintiffs daughter was one of many people trying to figure out where the
sewer smelling flooding was coming from and the guard's statement inferring there was a
sewer in the entrance. This fact should be considered for Summary Judgment.

xxiv.

Defendant denies fac.*32 claiming and incorrectly "this statement retates to the

alleged condition of the premises over a year after incident occurred is not relevant at alt as

to what the facts and circumstances were in August ol 2O12.'plaintiff disagrees. glL3lt1to
end of July 2013 is NOT "over" a year as Defendant claims. tt's under a year that plaintiff and

her daughter discovered and witnessed the puckered up carpeting with an imprint of a sewer
protruding in the middle of the entrance under wall-to-wallcarpeting. lt is very relevant as it

does show how the constant sewer smelling flooding from undemeath the carpeting Plaintiff

experienced on8lt3i12, caused extensive damage by puckering up itre entrance fioors. An

important material fact that should be considered for Summary Judgment ruling.

)ou.

Defendant denies fact #33 untruthfully claiming'This statement was made over a

year-after the incident occurred is not relevant at all as to what the facts and circumstances
were in August of 20t2." Plaintiff states: "Plaintiff testified that there is a sewer in

the middle of the entrance floor, but did not see it at the time of fall, (Ex. c, p. 741,

Lines

lS-17);

only that the guard inferred to a sewer (Ex. C p. 773, P. 2-5, p. 747, Lines 2A-2i) being in the
entrance by angrily stating "l knew this was gonna happen one day, (Ex. C p.

l4l,

za-24 ond p.

742, Lines 7-2) because that entrance always floods". Ex. C p. 772, lines 78-24 and p. lZ3, lines
7-5; Ex.

5.'

SlL3l72, (ot

Defendant Security Guard made this statement to Plaintiff on day of accident on

fod

#37 and fact #32) - lpJ "over a year after the incident occurred" as Defendant

incorrectly states. Alsq the discovery of the sewer was made at the end of July ,2A!3. glt3-L2
day of accident

to7l29lt3

is undqr a year when sewer was discovered and should be

considered for Summarv Judgment ruling.

xxvi.

Defendant denies fact #34 claiming it's not material or relevant, but do not deny the

validity of fact #34, which states: "Plaintiff told Valerie, manager, she saw her foot step over the
threshold and onto the entrance floor and also states that in her 8/21/12 Comploint p.

l,

pora.

2,line 3; Ex. 5.'

luvii.

Defendant denies fact #35 claiming it's irrelevant and immaterial and "heresay not

supported by any written statements that have been shown to the decision makers". plaintiff
disagrees. Fact #35 states: "As Plaintiff testified, Tar6et's manager, Valerie insinuated, ,'Are
10

you sure, maybe you slipped on the threshold because that's real slippery." Other Target
women employees chimed in, yeah, you could killyourself on that!" This statement is verified in

Plaintiffs &page handwritten 8/2tlL2 Complaint p. 3, para. 1, and testified at Deposition and
cited accordingly at fact #35 and should be considered for summary Judgment.

xxviii. Defendant denies fact f36, claiming it is not material or relevant, but do not deny
the validity of fact #36 which states: "After the fall Plaintiff asked a Target employee, Valerie to
check the entrance floor, worrying someone else might get

8/21/12 Camploint p. 2, last f paragroph

lines

2-5;

Ex. C,

hurt." Verified in her 4-poge

p. 749 tines j-24. plaintiff

had the

presence of mind to make sure there was nothing there on 8/L3/L2 but a sewer smelling flood

floor and should be considered for Summary Judgment ruling.

xxix.

Defendant denies fact #37 that the "condition of a threshold four years after the

incident occurred is not relevant''. Plaintiff disagrees. "Plaintiff went to the Target store on
5/2ULG (4 years later) and discovered that the slippery threshold she brought to Target,s

attention 8/27/77 was never replaced since the 8113/tZ accident. Ex.2l." She brought
this to Targefs attention in her 4-page S/21/12 Comploint p. i, paro.I, and it's very retevant to
show Target doesn't take complaints about hazardous conditions seriousty because it's the
exact same un-treaded threshold that was there on B/tz/L2 day of accident.

xxx. Defendant denies fact #38 as "highly inconsistent with the video in question,';
information contained in this alleged statement is not material or relevant". Plaintiff disagrees.
It happened. "As Plaintiff tried to testify to this at the Deposition, on Target's Surveillance
Video, six minutes before Plaintiff falls, a man is shown tripping/stipping on the threshold, he

jumps up very high to break his fall, lands, and looks to have sprained his ankte and is seen

Ll

limping then continues into store." Defendant suggested at Deposition that she was the only
cne that fel!the day of accident, which is not true, Ex.

C,

p. 255,lines 22-24 and p. 2SG,

lines 5-9. Targe(s Surveillance Video ot 2:48:lOpM.

t<n<i. Defendant denies fact #39: "Plaintifftestified that

because the entrance floor was

flooded from underneath, a hydroplane formed between the flooded carpeting and her right

foot causing her to slip and fall. Ex. C p. fia fines 23-24, p. 79s, line

l; Ex. C p. lg4, lines l&

72-" Delendant denies this statement saying Plaintiff says in 4-page handwritten document

that "her right foot slipped on something very very slippeq/'. Plaintiff disagrees with
Defendant's denialand incorrect interpretation. ln her 4-page Comptaint, Plaintiff is describing

"right foot slipped on something very very slippery''' as what she felt as she stepped into the
entrance and that should be obvious to anyone who reads it, since she didn't know she was
steoping onto a deceivingly sewer flooded entrance

floor. Plaintiff

made very ctear at the

Deposition over and over and over again that the sewer flooded entrance floor caused a

hydroplane to form causing Plaintiffs accident and that was the "foreign substance,,
67, lines 18-22.;

p. 63, lines r6-2a;

8/27/72 Comploint, p. 7, poro

3,

Ex. c,

first 3

.

(Ex. C, p.

g. 163, lines 16-24 and p. 164, lines l-9) inher 4-poge

lines

and lost 4 sentences. plaintiffs fact #39

should be considered for Summary Judgment ruling.

xxxii-

Defendant denies fact

fi210

that states: "Plaintiff testified entrance was in a bad

condition, carpeting was well-worn, balding (Ex.C p. 767, tines 2-3) and flooded, but stitt
avowed that the flooded carpeting caused a hydropla ne (Ex. C, p,

l9i,

7-9; Ex.I3l which was

the cause of her fall." Ex. C, p. 794, lines 23-24; p. 795, Line 7; p. T68 lines 6-g); Ex. B, plointiffs
8/21/12 Comploint p. 7, pora 3, first 3lines and lost 4 sentences; Ex. 13.' Defendant denies this

statement saying Plaintiff says in 4-page handwritten document that "her right foot slipped on
something very very slippeq/. Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant's cienial anri incorrect

interpretation. ln her 4-page Complaint, Plaintiff

is describing

what she felt as she stepped into

the entrance and that should be obvious to anyone who reads it, since she didn't know she was
stepping onto a deceivingly flooded entrance floor. Plaintiff made very clear at the Deposition

over and over again that the sewer flooded entrance floor caused a hydroplane to form causing

Plaintiffs accident

l,Ex-

c, p.67, lines 78-22; p.63, lines 76-20; Ex. C, p. 763, lines 7G24 ond p,

764, lines 1-9) in her 4-page 8/21fi2 Comploint p. 7, paro 3, first 3 lines and last 4 sentences
ond should be considered for Summary Judgment.

tocxiii. Defendant denies fact #41saying it is irrelevant and not material, but does not deny
the validity of the statement. Memorizing Valerie's name, and that she was a manager was very
important, and should be very relevant to this Court to show that Plaintiff was paying attention

to allthat was being said.

xxxiv. Defendant denies fac. #42 stating "This condition of the area a year after the
incident occurred is not relevant at all as to what the facts and circumstances which plaintiff
claims caused her to fall in August of 2CI1,2." Plaintiff disagrees. Not even 1 year later, on

&lLlL3 (puckered floors discovered on 7 /29/L3 with her daughter) Plaintiff took these pictures
of the puckered up entrance floor with an imprint of a sewer protruding from underneath, are
identified fingerprints so-to-speak of fingerprints so-to-speak found on 8l13lt2 day of accident,
of the strong sewer odor, the sewer smelling water coming up from under the carpeting,
eonfirmed in Plaintiffs 4-page 9|LULZ Complaint; also confirms the Security Guard's statement
".,.The entrance always floods when it rains!" inferring a sewer was in entrance. These

pictures are relevant and should be considered undisputed evidence for Summary Judgment.

xxxv.

Defendant denies fact #45 claiming "As previously stated, A wet floor sign is seen in

the video." Plaintiff disagrees. Plaintiff states: "As Plaintiff testified at Deposition, and in her

$lLL/tZ Complaint, (Ex. B, p. 3 ot 2/.

No signage of Caution Wet Floors", or cones or rubber

mats were in the entrance to warn customers coming in that the floor was wet, before the

incident and there should have been. Ex. Torget's Surueillonce video; Photos,
72-27;

Ex. 8,

Ex. C

P.2SS, Lines

p. 3 at (2)." The "wet floor sign seen in the video" Defendant refers to has nothing

to do with the entrance where Plaintiff fell and is way beyond the entrance's

2nd

set of doors

and already inside the store where the tile begins and is nowhere near or in the entrance itself.

Defendant's denialto fact #45 completely contradicts their "admit" to fact #49 that says ',No,,
team members placed cones or warned others of the condition" they also omit to list it as #49.
(See

Torge(s Response to Plaintiffs Local Rute 56.7 Poge 16). This material fact should be

considered for Summary Judgment.

xxxvi. At fact #47, Defendant omits nurnbering it as #47 and denies Plaintiffs statement
saying: "As previously stated, A wet floor sign is seen in the video." Plaintiff disagrees.

Plaintiffs tact#47 reads: "Nq signage of 'Caution Wet Floors", or cones or rubber mats were
placed in the entrance to warn customers coming in that the floor was wet, after the incident."
Ex. Target's

surueillonce video;

Ex. c,

p. zss,

g-zl,

Ex. B,

plointiffs g/21/lz comploint.,

The "wet floor sign seen in the video" Defendant is referring to has nothing to do with

the entrance where Plaintiff fell and is way beyond the entrance's

2nd

set of doors and already

inside the store where the tile begins and is nowhere near or in the entrance itself. Also,

Defendant's denial of *47 completely contradicts their "admit" to fact #49 that says ,,No,, team

members placed cones or warned others of the condition", and they also omit to list it as #49,
and leave it blank, {See Torget's Response to Plointiffs Local Rule 56.7 Page 161.
This material fact should be considered by the Court for Summary Judgment.

xxxvii. Defendant incorrectly lists Plaintiffs fact #50

as

'#48" (Defendant's

Response

to

Plaintiffs Rule 56.7 Summary Judgment Page 17) and "deny''content of fact #5Q that Plaintiffs
injuries are not material or relevant but do not deny the validity of fact #50.
The above facts stated by Plaintiff in her Motion for Summary Judgment are

taken from the record, cited accordingly and additional proof of evidentiary photos and a
witness statement, Target's own Surveillance Video is provided accordingly. Defendant's
denials are untruthful. contradictory.

ilt.

PIAINTIFF HAS DEMONSTRATED PROXIMATE CAUSE WITH PROPER EVTDENCE
SUBMITTED

To establish liability under lffinois law, a plaintiff must "prove a causalconnection between

the injury and the event at issue." Lough v

BNSF Ry.

Co.,988 N.E. 2d 7090, 1094-95 (tlt. App. Ct.

2013) "Evidence of proximate cause must not be contingent, speculative or merely possible, but

that there must be such degree of probability

as

to amount to a reasonable certainty that such

causal connection exists." Thus, proximate cause exists only "when there is a reasonable

certainty that the defendant's acts caused the injury. The proximate cause has been
demonstrated by Plaintiffthroughout the entire Deposition, in her 8/21/1.24-page complaint
and in her Memorandum of Law Statement that the sewer smelling flooded entrance caused a

hydroplane to form causing Plaintiff to slip and fall and sustain multiple injuries that will never
heal, submitting to the Court evidentiary photos (Ex. #73 ond 74), cited properly to the record

1.5

of the Deposition, (Ex. C) and in her 8/27/72 Comploint and a Witness Statement,

Ex. 5.

Plaintiff has shown that the sewer smelling flooded floor caused her fall on 8lL3lL2,in
her 4-page Sl2tlL}Complaint, "l felt I was lying on top of a flooded sewel' {8/21/12 4'poge
Complaint Poge 7, paro 3, last sentence); "As I lay there, filthy, smelly liquid was swooshing

about

Yz"

at more from the floor. soaking into my skin and my wounded knee. That's way too

much liquid on any entryway floor, carpeted or not." (8/21/12 4-page Comploint Page 7, pora

3, 7ot 4

tines);

'lfelt

so dirty, a

total mess, as if I emerged from soaking in a sewer." (8/2U12 4-

poge Comploint Poge 2, poro 4 lost 2 lines). EMT states to her: 'Your injured knee was soaking
in that floor from God knows what was in there, and you need to have it checked." (8/21/12 4page Comploint Poge 2, paro 3 line 3-6.1 Plaintiff provided pictures of proof a sewer is located
in the middle of Target's entrance under wall-to-wall carpeting {Ex.
was their sole responslbility

U)

and their sewer

to inspect and maintain per the Cify of Chicogo

Code S 71-1.6420, Chopter 78-29-700, Ex. 22; (Ex 13

Sewers Municipal

ond 74) ond that Target "admits" to being

solely responsible for the maintenance of their entrance which includes their sewer at fact #53,
a sewer inherent to overflow at any time and they should have acted accordingly knowing a

sewer is there by placing signage, cones or rubber mats, which Defendant did not do before or

after Plaintiffs fall.
The physicalcondition of the Target store on Addison Street is related to Target's

business.

See Coffee v.

Menord, lnc., No. 73 C 2726, 2075 WL 399049, ot *4 (N.D. lll. March 25,

2075). Target is responsible for the condition of their entrance's sewer they placed under wall-

to-wall carpeting (Ex, 14) and the entrance as a whole (Ex. 13 and 74), as Defendant Target
admits to that at fact #53 of Plaintiff's Undisputed Facts. Target's entrance's sewer with an

L6

inherent nature to overffow at any time, Target had no protocols in place regarding
maintenance to their sewer in their entrance (Ex.

U) that led to an unacceptable high

probability that the se$rer would overflow at any time and it did on a regular basis (Ex. 13 ond
Ex.

74), and caused a safety hazard to customers entering the entrance, which is also willful and

wanton.

IV.

DEFENDANTS WILIFUI AND WANTON MISCONDUCT

To establish willful and wanton misconduct, the plaintiff must show "either a deliberate

intention to harm or an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the welfare of the

plaintiff."

Adkins v. Soroh Bush Lincoln Heolth Ctr., 544 N.E. 2d, 733,734

(lll. 1989). Whether

a

defendant's conduct rises to the level of willful and wanton behavior is usually a fact question.
Estate

of

Burns v. Williomson, No. 77-CV-3020, 2015 W1ir465088,

qt

*1,2 (C.D. tll.

luly 2t, ZOIS)

(citing Kirwon v. Lincolnshire-Riverwoods Fire Prot. Dist.811N.E.2d, 7259,7264 (tll. App. Ct.

2N4). Defendant, Target negligently installed a sewer

in the middle of their very busy

entrance floor under wall-to-wallcarpeting, where it could not be seen to be inspected,

maintained or repaired as was Defendant's sole responsibility to protect the public and Plaintiff

from its inherent nature to overflow at any time.. per City of Chicogo Sewers Municipal Code S
77'76'020, Chopter 78-29-7N,

Ex. 22; (Ex 13

and 74); and Target chose to ignore their sewer

under the wall-to-wall carpeting before and after Plaintiffs fall, which is an utter indifference to
or conscious disregard for the welfare of the Plaintiff bordering on a deliberate intention to
harm.
The physical condition of the Target store on Addison Street is related to Target's

business.

See Coffee v.

Menard, lnc., No. 73 C 2726, 2015 WL 399049, ot *4 {N.D. tll. Morch 25,

L7

2015). Target is responsible for the condition of the entrance's sewer and the entrance as a

whole, as Defendant Target admits to that at fact #53 of Plaintiffs Undisputed Facts RESPONSE:

'There are no documents related to a porch; however there are documents relating to
ownership. However, the request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Target has
admitted ownership and maintenance responsibility so there is no need to produce any written
documentation substantiating that fact. Ex.

24."

Target has lied in their lnterrogatories that

'The front entrance facility alleged in the Complaint did not need repaif after the accident, an
undisputed fact admitted by Defendant at#44 and #54 lEx.25, p.4 ot No. 72), Target's
lnterrogatories contained a signed sworn oath of the truth of the statements made by
Defendant Target and signed by William Thom, Senior Paralegal of Target Corporate Services,
lnc., October 5, 2015. Exhibit 25; As Target has shown, it cannot provide any proof of

inspection, maintenance or repairs of their sewer in their entrance, not before and not after.
Pictures of balding worn-out filthy carpeting after accident of 8lL3lL2,lEx. 73) and of the
puckered up floors with an imprint of a sewer protruding from underneath the wall-to-wall

carpeting prove that their entrance did need repair; lEx. 74 token 8/1/13), further proving
Target had an "utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the welfare of the Plaintiff

bordering on a deliberate intention to harm" before the accident and after. Photos entered

into evidenee Exhibit #73 and #74, prove the entrance was in desperate need of repair from the
constant flooding from the sewer located in the middle of the entrance. Entrance was repaired
16+ months after the accident, in early 2OL4, but Target didn't want to provide that proof to

Plaintiff as they should have in the lnterrogatories, that it needed repair, that it was repaired
before May 2OL4, so they lied in their lnterrogatories so as not to provide the proof requested

t8

by Plaintiff of when floors were repaired, who repaired them and names of the people that

repaired them.
A sewer is man-made, an inherent danger to overflow at any moment and cause a

hazardous condition and installed by Defendant and it was their sole responsibility to inspect
and maintain it, which they did not do. Defendant admits to be responsible for the
maintenance of the entire entrance at #53. (Ex.

U).

Yet, Defendant did nothing to warn

Plaintiff as they should have, knowing a sewer is inherent to overflow at any time, with signage,
rubber mats, or cones. Reed v. Wot-Mart Stores, tnc.70A N.E. 2d, ZlZ, ZIS
{ttt. App. Ct. lggg).
city of chicago sewers Municipol code S t7-t6-020, chapter tg-zg-200.
An entrance to any store is a vulnerable accident prone area, and Target put that
sewer
in the middle of their entrance into their very busy store and were responsible for its

inspection, maintenance and repair per City of Chicogo Sewers Municipal Code 7l-76-020,
$
Chopter 78'29-700 and therefore Target should have had protocols in place to always put
cones, signs of "Caution When Wet" or rubber mats out when it rained or snowed because
a
sewer is inherent to overflow at any moment when not inspected or maintained. Target
should
have known to do this and ignored it, because they negligently installed the sewer under
wall-

to-wall carpeting to hide it from the public's/custome/s view, which is utter indifference and
conscious disregard for Plaintiffs and the public's safery, which also borders on a deliberate

intention to harm by playing Russian Roulette with customers,lives.

V.

DEFET{DANT HAD ACTUAL NONCE

Plaintiff provided the Court with Actual Notice, with the Security Guard angrity
stating "l knew this was gonna happen one day, because that entrance always floods when it

19

rains." at fact #31 and fact #32, she even pinpointed, on Target's Surveillance Video, the
approximate time he made that statement, because he made it while she waited for her Sf.ag

refund: At 3:01:35PM -The security guard with the red shirt, to right of Plaintiff, standing
alongside manager, Vaterie, moves away from her and stands in front of and in the center of

the entrance's doors inside the store. He stands there staring at the entrance. At 3:02...PM

-

This same security guard steps away from looking at the entrance and back to where Valerie is

standing, leaning into saying something to Valerie as she leans into him. At 3:02:57PM

-

This

security Guard very upset and angry states: "l knew this was gonna happen one day because

that entrance always floods when it rains!" See Ex. 73 ond 74; Ex. 5; Pavlik v. Wol-Mart Stores,
lnc" 323

ttt.

App.

id

1060 753 N.E. 2d 7007 (7't Dist. 2OOl) ond Vojos vs. kMart Corp. 372 tlt.

App. 3d 544, 727 N.E. 2d, gg7 Fth Dist. 2@O). Right after the guard's statement, Valerie asks

Plaintiff, "Are you sure you didn't slip on the threshold because that's realslippery?" The other
women employees chimed in, "Yeah, you could kill yourself on that!" As if to distract Plaintiff

from what the Security Guard had just said.
A business owner will be held liable if

it

has actual knowledge of a foreign substance on

the floor and fails to remove or guard against the substance prior to it causing a patron's injury.
!f an employee has knowledge of the presence of a foreign substance, the knowledge will be

imputed on the defendant/employer. ln Vojos vs. K-Mort Corp. 372lll. App. 372 lll. App. 3d 54,
727 N.E. 2d, gg7 (5h Dist.lAOq. An example of a case involving actual knowledge of a foreign
substance is Vojas vs. K-Mark Corp., in which the plaintiff alleged that she slipped on a "black
substance" while shopping in the defendant's store. The customer reportedly notified store
employees of the ineident. ln response, one of the employees stated, "l thought they had

20

cleaned that up". The court held that because the statement by the employee established that

the employee personally knew that the substance was on the floor and failed to remove it, the
establishment had Actual Notice of the condition. Similorly, in Pavlik v. Wal-Man Stores, lnc.
323 tll. App. 3d 1060 753 N.E. 2d 10A7 P't Dist. 2007), the court held that an employee's

statement that "someone should have cleaned up (the puddle of water/conditioner) before"
was evidence of the store's actual knowledge of the condition.

Although Plaintiff provided the Court that Defendant had Actual Notice, she also
provided the Court with evidence, Ex. 74, Ex.5 that shows Defendant's puckered up entrance

floor with an imprint of

a sewer

protruding from underneath the wall-to-wallcarpeting, (Ex. 14)

proving that on day of the accident, S|LS|LL, the strong sewer odor and the water/tiquid
coming up from under the carpeting as she states in her 8/2LlL24-page Complaint and at fact
#13, was from Defendant's own sewer in the middle of the entrance. A plaintiff need not show

that the defendant had "actual or constructive notice when she can show the substance was
placed on the premises through the defendant's negligence." Krebs v. Volley Boptist Church,

lnc., No. 2-74-a243, 2014 wL 49423i7, AT *6 (tll. App. ct. oct, 1, 2014); Reed v. wal-Maft
Stores,lnc.700 N.E. 2d 272,274 (lll. App. Ct. 1998).
Plaintiff has shown that the sewer smelling flooded floor caused her fall on SllglL?.,
in her 4-page 8/2Ut2 Complaint,

'lfelt

I was lying on

top of a flooded sewef lA/27/tZ 4-

page complaint Page 7, pora 3, last sentence); "As I lay there, filthy, smelly liquid was
swooshing about Yr" or more from the floor, soaking into my skin and my wounded knee.
That's way too much liquid on any entryway floor, carpeted or not." (8/21/12 4-poge Complaint
Page 7, pora

3, 7't 4lines); "tfett

so dirty, a

total mess, as if I emerged from soaking in a sewer."

21

{8/21/12 4-poge Complaint Page 2, pora

4 last 2 tines). Plaintiff provided pictures of proof

a

sewer is located in the middle of Target's entrance under wall-to-wall
carpeting (Ex. 14) and

their sewer was their sole responsibirity to inspect and maintain per the e4v
of chicagosewers
Municipol code 5 77-76420, chopter 78-29-700, Ex. 22; (Ex

li

ond 14)and that rarget ,admits,,

to being solely responsible for the maintenance of their entrance which includes
their sewer at
act #53.

vt.

Target created a dangerous condition by failing to maintain the
entrance and its sewer,

inherent to overflow at any moment, that they put there under wall-to-walt
carpeting, and
Target is liable based on its failure to address the sewer overfiowing
into the entrance, causing
a dangerous condition

to Plaintiff and public. Target negligently put that sewer there under

wall-to-wallcarpeting, knowing a sewer would inherently overflow into the entrance
if they
didn't inspect and maintain

i!

which they clearly did not do and could not do, and did nothing

to warn Plaintiff and should have with signage, rubber mats, or cones because they knew
that
sewerwas there and so did employees. fleed v.Wal-Mort Stores, lnc.700 N.E. 2d, 212,
275 (til.

App. Ct. 7998). City of Chicago Sewers Municipot Code

S

tt-t6-O21, Chapter tE_2g-7OO.

73 ond 74; Ex. 5; Povlikv. Wol-Mort Stores, tnc. i23 llt. App.

zWl)

ond vojos vs. K-Mort corp.

3lz

ttt.

App. gd

id t060 l\g

N.E. Zd uOOT

See Ex.

(1't Dist.

su, 727 N.E. zd, 3gz (sh oist. z@at.

Target breached that duty to Plaintiff as she outtines in her Memorandum of Law, ,.as

the substance was placed there by the negligence of the business." Zuppardi v. Wal-Mort
Stores, tnc.770 F.3d,644,649

(f

Circ.2074).

A plaintiff need not show that the defendant had 'hctual or constructive notice when
22

she can show the substance was placed on the premises
through the defendant,s negligence.,,
Krebs v.

valley Baptist church, lnc.

2074) (quating Reed v.

No.

2-74-a243, 2014 wL 4g42ig7, at *6 (ttt. Ap. ct. oct. 7,

wat-Man stores, tnc.

200 N.E.

2d, 272, 2t4 (ttt. App. ct.

1998); Ex.

t4.

Target placed/installed the sewer, negligently covered in wail-to-wallcarpeting
in a busy

entrance, ignored it, without inspecting or maintaining it and should
have known that se$rer
was inherent to overflow at any moment and woutd cause a dangerous
condition to exist, that

harmed Plaintiff. Ex. lj,14. Donoho v. o'connell,s, lnc., 14g N.E. 2d,4g4,

t 41(llt. lgsg); and

Piotrowskiv. Menard, lnc. No. 73 c ss72, 2o1s wL srgg47s, ot *3 (N.D.
ilt. Aug. gl, zols),

VII.

CONCTUSION:

Rule 56.1 format should not trump lying to the

Court. Defendant Target corporation,s

consistent misrepresentations and contradictions to the court in their
Motions, in their hopes

that the court is not paying attention, and in their zeal to not wanting
to accept responsibitity,
their only choice is to make things up with false interpretations and
made-up quotes in their
own undisputed facts motion and a Deposition that was given not
to gather truth but to twist

that truth. This cannot possibly grant ther-n summary judgment. .olaintiff
has consistently
proven this by citing to the record of the Deposition, her 4-pag
e s/z]'ltzcomptaint, Target's

surveillance videos, a witness statement and evidentiary exhibit photos.
For the foregoing reasons in Plaintiffs Reply in Support of
Her Motion for Summary

Judgment, there is no genuine issue of material fact and therefore
as a matter of law, summary
Judgrnent shoutd be granted to plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christine Brama,

filing pro se, respectfully prays that this

23

Honorable court grant
her motion for summary
Judgment pursuant
to Federar Rure of
civir
Procedure 56 against
the Defendant, Target
corporation.
Respectfully Submitte4

Christine Brama, plaintiff
Filing pro Se
4020 West Barry Avenue
Chicagq tllinois 60641
{773} s4s-3734

24

IN THE U'{ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE T{ORTHERN

DETBET OF IUJ]IOIS

EASTERN TXVISION
CHRISTINE BRAMA

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 14-C1/-06098

District Judge:
Honorable Marvin

Vs.

E.

Aspen

REEEIVEP

TARGET CORPORATION,

fl-rr

l.E,u

Defendant.
NOTICE OF FIUI{G

TO:

fl { An!1
u I (ul,

TI{OMAS G. BRUTON

c[ERt( u.s. otsrRtcr couRr

Eihen M. letts
ZUBER LAWLER DEL DUCA LLp (Formerly Greene and Letts)
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 600
Chicago,lt 60503

Please take notice that on February

1,2fi!7, Plaintiff filed with the clerk of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of lllinois, Eastern Division the attached:
PI,A$[-NFF'S {REVISEDLRT.II REPLYIN SUPPORTOF }IER MONOil rOR
SUU!,I4IUJUOGMENT.
Respectfully

Su

bm

itted,

Christine Brama, Plaintiff, filing pro se

Pf,OOTOFSCRUq:

The undersigned hereby certifies that the above mentioned document was served on
the above mentioned parties via U.S. Mail on Febnrary \m17.
Christine Brama, Plaintiff, filing pro se

Chrisiine Brarna, Plaintiff, filing pro se
4020 West Barry Avenue
Chicago,lllinois 60@1
t773) s{.s-3734

m-

["-"le4r1

c N) biV eh1r|rtl.Y*

*xt-rRn*cE

(serr*'?-D-

ryffHdi>
ltf"Jio

ffif''I;;-is:r:Y
t

\

V
i,t-i.i-tRt
o 1-H

DV"D

KE1+c'rD

'ffio,

J*

,"

fs)t"1

,

I

[r rT

J.I

+*

4{l

Perjury Charges in Illinois
Pe.jury is the crime that a person can be charged with for lying under oath in Illinois. The crime
of Perjury in Illinois is defined by 720ILCS 5/32-2 as follows:
(a) A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any
other
matter where by law the oath or affrrmation is required, he or she makes a false statement,
material to the issue or point in question, knowing the statement is false.

(b) Proof of Falsity.
An indictment or information for perjury alleging that the offender, under oath, has knowingly
made contradictory statements, material to the issue or point in question, in the same or in
different proceedings, where the oath or affirmation is required, need not specify which
statement is false. At the trial, the prosecution need not establish which sta-tement is false.
(c) Admission of Falsity.
Where the contradictory statements are made in the same continuous trial, an admission
by the
offender in that same continuous trial of the falsity of a contradictory statement shall bar
prosecution therefor under any provisions of this Code.

(d) A person shall be exempt from prosecution under subsection (a) of this Section if
he or she is
a peace officer who uses a false or fictitious name in the enforcement of the
criminal laws, and
this use is approved in writing as provided in Section 10-1 of "The Liquor Control Act
of 1934,,,
as amended, Section 5 of "An Act in relation to the use of an assumed name in
the conduct or
transaction of business in this State", approved July 17, 1941, as amended, or Section
2605-200
of the Department of State Police Law. However, this exemption shall not apply to testimony
in
judicial proceedings where the identity of the peace officer is material to
the irr,r", and he or she
is ordered by the court to disclose his or her identity.
(e) Sentence.
Perjury is a Class 3 felony.
Those convicted of Perjury in Illinois can receive a prison sentence of 2-5 years,
and a fine of up
to $25,000.

In addition to the separate criminal charge of Perjury, a person who is accused of lying
under
oath can be held in contempt of court. The punishment for a contempt finding can
include a fine
or jail sentence, as well as negative consequences in the underlying case.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILTINOIS

tr[LHD
n'r 0 4 ri\hq

EASTERN DIVISION

.,".J{3lllBBfflTBU,*,

CHRISTINE BRAMA,

Plaintiff,

No.

V.

14CV 06098

Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim

TARGET CORPORATION, a Foreign

Corporation, d/b/a TARGET STORES
Defendants.
NOTICE OF FITING
TO:

Eileen M. Letts
ZUBER LAWLER DEL DUCA LLP (Formerly Greene and Letts)

55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 600
Chicago, lL 60603
Please take notice that on December 4,2018, Plaintiff filed with the clerk of the U.S.

District Court for the Northern District of lllinois, Eastern Division the attached: PLAINTIFF
cHRrsTlNE BRAMtrS MOTION FOR JUDGMENTAND OTHER RELIEF & ASKING FOR SFVERE
SANCT|ONS AGAI NST DEFEN DANT TARGETS PERJU RY/W|TH HOIDI NGTTAMPERING WITH
EVIDENCE IN INTERROGATORIES
Respectfully Subm itted,
Plaintiff, filing pro se

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the above mentioned document was served on
the above mentioned parties via U.S. Mail on HAND-DELIVERED to Eileen Letts, t2l4lL8.

Plaintiff, filing pro se
Christine Brama, Plaintiff, filing pro se
4020 West Barry Avenue
Chicago, lllinois 50il1
17731s4s-3734