Preview
Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled
Location: <>
Judge: Calendar, 16
FILED
5/10/2023 5:19 PM
IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION 2023CH01311
Calendar, 16
TAMARA PARADIES, individually and 22670022
on behalf of herself and all others similarly Case No. 2023CH01311
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALDEN ESTATES-COURTS OF HUNTLEY,
INC.,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiff Tamara Paradies (“Plaintiff”), through her undersigned attorneys, replies to the
affirmative defenses of Defendant Alden Estates-Courts of Huntley, Inc. (“Defendant” or
“Alden”) raised in Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Class Action Complaint
(“Answer”) as follows. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify and to assert or otherwise supplement
her replies to Defendant’s Answer upon discovery of facts or evidence making such action
appropriate.
Defendant’s Affirmative and Additional Defenses
Defendant states the following affirmative and additional defenses to the Complaint, but
it does not assume the burden of proof on any defense except as the law requires as to a specific
defense.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, this Paragraph
of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To
the extent that a response is required to the allegations in this paragraph, Plaintiff denies
each of them.
1
First Affirmative Defense
FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311
Compliance with Illinois Nursing Home Care Rules
1. Defendant did not require Plaintiff to provide, and Plaintiff did not provide, her or
her family’s genetic information to Defendant. Even if Defendant had required or Plaintiff had
provided such genetic information, licensing laws regulating Defendant’s operations required it to
require such genetic information.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 1 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph
1, Plaintiff denies each of them. Answering further, Plaintiff denies that licensing laws
regulating Defendant’s operations required it to collect genetic information in violation of
the Illinois Genetic Information Protection Act.
2. Per the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act, 201 ILCS 45/1-101 to 3A-101, the Illinois
Department of Public Health promulgated rules regulating long-term care facilities. The rules
applicable to Defendant’s licensed facility are in the Skilled Nursing and Intermediate Care
Facilities Code, 77 Ill. Adm. Code Part 300 (the “Nursing Home Rules”). Section 300.655 of the
Nursing Home Rules, titled Initial Health Evaluation for Employees, requires nursing homes to
obtain an initial health evaluation of their employees. It states:
a) Each employee shall have an initial health evaluation which shall be used to insure that
employees are not placed in positions which would pose undue risk of infection to
themselves, other employees, residents, or visitors.
2
b) The initial health evaluation shall be conducted not more than 30 days prior to the
FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311
employee beginning employment in the facility. The evaluation shall be completed not
more than 30 days after the employee begins employment in the facility.
c) The initial health evaluation shall include a health inventory. This inventory shall be
obtained from the employee and shall include the employee's immunization status and any
available history of conditions which would predispose the employee to acquiring or
transmitting infectious diseases. This inventory shall include any history of exposure to, or
treatment for, tuberculosis. The inventory shall also include any history of hepatitis,
dermatologic conditions, or chronic draining infections or open wounds.
d) The initial health evaluation shall include a physical examination. The examination shall
include at a minimum any procedures needed in order to:
1) Detect any unusual susceptibility to infection and any conditions which would
increase the likelihood of the transmission of disease to residents, other employees,
or visitors.
2) Determine that the employee appears to be physically able to perform the job
functions which the facility intends to assign to the employee.
e) The initial health evaluation shall include a tuberculin skin test which is conducted in
accordance with the requirements of Section 300.1025. The test must meet one of the
following timeframes:
1) The test must be completed no more than 90 days prior to the date of initial
employment in the facility, or
2) The test must be commenced no more than ten days after the date of initial
employment in the facility.
3
77 Ill. Adm. Code 300.655.
FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 2 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph
2, Plaintiff denies each of them. Answering further, Plaintiff denies that licensing laws
regulating Defendant’s operations required it to collect genetic information in violation of
the Illinois Genetic Information Protection Act.
3. In compliance with section 300.655 of the Nursing Home Rules, Defendant asked
Plaintiff to complete a Pre-Placement Health Questionnaire to determine whether she would pose
undue risk of infection to herself, other employees, residents, or visitors., which she did, in part,
and submitted to Defendant. (Exhibit A.). Defendant also required Plaintiff to submit a specimen
for a drug and alcohol test, which she consented to and submitted. (Exhibit B). She declined a
Hepatitis B vaccine. (Exhibit C.) Defendant requested and Plaintiff provided no other health
information concerning herself.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that the first sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions,
to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required Plaintiff denies the
allegations in the first sentence. As to the remainder of the paragraph, Plaintiff denies the
allegations in Paragraph 3, but admits that Defendant asked Plaintiff to complete certain
paperwork and that Plaintiff did decline a Hepatitis B vaccine. Plaintiff respectfully refers
the Court to Paragraphs 27-29 of the Complaint in support of her denials herein.
4
Furthermore, the documents referenced in Paragraph 3 speak for themselves and plaintiff
FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311
refers the Court to those documents for their contents.
4. Nothing in Defendant’s health evaluation of Plaintiff required any family medical
history, and Defendant did not request family medical history.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff denies
the allegations in paragraph 4 of Defendant’s Answer and respectfully refers the Court to
Paragraphs 27-29 of the Complaint in support of her denials herein.
5. Even if the health information Plaintiff provided somehow contained family
medical history, Defendant received it inadvertently.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff denies
the allegations in paragraph 5 of Defendant’s Answer. Answering further, Plaintiff contends
that Defendant’s request for family medical information was not inadvertent, and refers the
Court to Paragraphs 29 and 52 of the complaint in support of her denial.
6. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot recover damages against Defendant under GIPA.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 6 contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required, but to the
extent a response is required Plaintiff denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of Defendant’s
Answer.
5
Second Affirmative Defense
FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311
Inadvertent Request of Family Medical History
7. In compliance with section 300.655 of the Nursing Home Rules, Defendant
requested Plaintiff to provide certain health information about herself. If the information Plaintiff
provided did contain family medical history, Defendant inadvertently requested it.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 7 contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required, but to the
extent a response is required Plaintiff denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of Defendant’s
Answer, and respectfully refers the Court to Paragraphs 27-29 and 52 of the Complaint in
support of her denials herein.
8. Section 25(g) of GIPA states, “inadvertently requesting family medical history by
an employer … does not violate this Act.” 410 ILCS 513/25(g).
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 8 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph
8, Plaintiff denies each of them.
9. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot recover damages against Defendant under GIPA.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 9 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph
9, Plaintiff denies each of them.
6
Third Affirmative Defense
FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311
Good Faith and Reasonable Reliance
10. To the extent that GIPA applies to Defendant’s conduct under the allegations in the
Complaint, Defendant is not liable because it relied in good faith upon a reasonable interpretation
of GIPA’s statutory language and its belief that it was not requesting genetic information of
Plaintiff.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 10 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph
10, Plaintiff denies each of them.
Fourth Affirmative Defense
Statute of Limitations
11. Although Plaintiff purports to limit the putative class to those “individuals, from
the date five years prior to the date of the filing of this action to the date of class certification of
this action (1) who applied for employment with Defendant or were employed by Defendant in
Illinois, and (2) from whom Defendant, or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant, requested and/or
obtained genetic information, including family medical history, in connection with the person’s
application for employment or the person’s employment with Defendant,” Defendant currently
lacks sufficient knowledge or information to identify when each putative class member’s claims
may have arisen. The claims of the putative class are barred in whole or in part to the extent that
they failed to bring their causes of action within the applicable statute of limitations.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff denies
the allegations in paragraph 11 of Defendant’s Answer, and notes that Defendant should
7
have sufficient records in its possession to calculate the identity of each class member and
FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311
when their claims arose.
Fifth Affirmative Defense
Federal Preemption
12. To the extent that members of the putative class are members of a union and subject
to a collective bargaining agreement, their claims are preempted under section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 12 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph
12, Plaintiff denies each of them. Furthermore, the collective bargaining agreement
referenced in Paragraph 12, to the extent it even exists or is applicable, speaks for itself and
Plaintiff refers the Court to that document for its contents.
13. Federal labor laws preempt Plaintiff’s GIPA claim, because it requires
interpretation or administration under the collective bargaining agreement and the union acted as
their exclusive bargaining agent under the agreement.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 13 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph
13, Plaintiff denies each of them. Furthermore, the collective bargaining agreement
referenced in Paragraph 13, to the extent it even exists or is applicable, speaks for itself and
Plaintiff refers the Court to that document for its contents.
8
FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311
14. Accordingly, this court must dismiss any putative class member subject to a
collective bargaining agreement.
ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states
that Paragraph 14 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph
14, Plaintiff denies each of them.
Dated: May 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Edward Wallace
Edward A. Wallace
Mark R. Miller
Molly C. Wells
WALLACE MILLER
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
T. (312) 261-6193
E. eaw@wallacemiller.com
mrm@wallacemiller.com
mcw@wallacemiller.com
Firm ID: 65958
Elizabeth Brehm
Kyle McLean
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
T. 212-532-1091
E. ebrehm@sirillp.com
kmclean@sirillp.com
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
9
Preview
Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled Location: <> Judge: Calendar, 16 FILED 5/10/2023 5:19 PM IRIS Y. MARTINEZ CIRCUIT CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COOK COUNTY, IL FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311 COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION 2023CH01311 Calendar, 16 TAMARA PARADIES, individually and 22670022 on behalf of herself and all others similarly Case No. 2023CH01311 situated, Plaintiff, v. ALDEN ESTATES-COURTS OF HUNTLEY, INC., Defendant. PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Plaintiff Tamara Paradies (“Plaintiff”), through her undersigned attorneys, replies to the affirmative defenses of Defendant Alden Estates-Courts of Huntley, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Alden”) raised in Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Class Action Complaint (“Answer”) as follows. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify and to assert or otherwise supplement her replies to Defendant’s Answer upon discovery of facts or evidence making such action appropriate. Defendant’s Affirmative and Additional Defenses Defendant states the following affirmative and additional defenses to the Complaint, but it does not assume the burden of proof on any defense except as the law requires as to a specific defense. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, this Paragraph of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in this paragraph, Plaintiff denies each of them. 1 First Affirmative Defense FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311 Compliance with Illinois Nursing Home Care Rules 1. Defendant did not require Plaintiff to provide, and Plaintiff did not provide, her or her family’s genetic information to Defendant. Even if Defendant had required or Plaintiff had provided such genetic information, licensing laws regulating Defendant’s operations required it to require such genetic information. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 1 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 1, Plaintiff denies each of them. Answering further, Plaintiff denies that licensing laws regulating Defendant’s operations required it to collect genetic information in violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Protection Act. 2. Per the Illinois Nursing Home Care Act, 201 ILCS 45/1-101 to 3A-101, the Illinois Department of Public Health promulgated rules regulating long-term care facilities. The rules applicable to Defendant’s licensed facility are in the Skilled Nursing and Intermediate Care Facilities Code, 77 Ill. Adm. Code Part 300 (the “Nursing Home Rules”). Section 300.655 of the Nursing Home Rules, titled Initial Health Evaluation for Employees, requires nursing homes to obtain an initial health evaluation of their employees. It states: a) Each employee shall have an initial health evaluation which shall be used to insure that employees are not placed in positions which would pose undue risk of infection to themselves, other employees, residents, or visitors. 2 b) The initial health evaluation shall be conducted not more than 30 days prior to the FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311 employee beginning employment in the facility. The evaluation shall be completed not more than 30 days after the employee begins employment in the facility. c) The initial health evaluation shall include a health inventory. This inventory shall be obtained from the employee and shall include the employee's immunization status and any available history of conditions which would predispose the employee to acquiring or transmitting infectious diseases. This inventory shall include any history of exposure to, or treatment for, tuberculosis. The inventory shall also include any history of hepatitis, dermatologic conditions, or chronic draining infections or open wounds. d) The initial health evaluation shall include a physical examination. The examination shall include at a minimum any procedures needed in order to: 1) Detect any unusual susceptibility to infection and any conditions which would increase the likelihood of the transmission of disease to residents, other employees, or visitors. 2) Determine that the employee appears to be physically able to perform the job functions which the facility intends to assign to the employee. e) The initial health evaluation shall include a tuberculin skin test which is conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 300.1025. The test must meet one of the following timeframes: 1) The test must be completed no more than 90 days prior to the date of initial employment in the facility, or 2) The test must be commenced no more than ten days after the date of initial employment in the facility. 3 77 Ill. Adm. Code 300.655. FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311 ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 2 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 2, Plaintiff denies each of them. Answering further, Plaintiff denies that licensing laws regulating Defendant’s operations required it to collect genetic information in violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Protection Act. 3. In compliance with section 300.655 of the Nursing Home Rules, Defendant asked Plaintiff to complete a Pre-Placement Health Questionnaire to determine whether she would pose undue risk of infection to herself, other employees, residents, or visitors., which she did, in part, and submitted to Defendant. (Exhibit A.). Defendant also required Plaintiff to submit a specimen for a drug and alcohol test, which she consented to and submitted. (Exhibit B). She declined a Hepatitis B vaccine. (Exhibit C.) Defendant requested and Plaintiff provided no other health information concerning herself. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that the first sentence of Paragraph 3 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required Plaintiff denies the allegations in the first sentence. As to the remainder of the paragraph, Plaintiff denies the allegations in Paragraph 3, but admits that Defendant asked Plaintiff to complete certain paperwork and that Plaintiff did decline a Hepatitis B vaccine. Plaintiff respectfully refers the Court to Paragraphs 27-29 of the Complaint in support of her denials herein. 4 Furthermore, the documents referenced in Paragraph 3 speak for themselves and plaintiff FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311 refers the Court to those documents for their contents. 4. Nothing in Defendant’s health evaluation of Plaintiff required any family medical history, and Defendant did not request family medical history. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph 4 of Defendant’s Answer and respectfully refers the Court to Paragraphs 27-29 of the Complaint in support of her denials herein. 5. Even if the health information Plaintiff provided somehow contained family medical history, Defendant received it inadvertently. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph 5 of Defendant’s Answer. Answering further, Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s request for family medical information was not inadvertent, and refers the Court to Paragraphs 29 and 52 of the complaint in support of her denial. 6. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot recover damages against Defendant under GIPA. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 6 contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required Plaintiff denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of Defendant’s Answer. 5 Second Affirmative Defense FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311 Inadvertent Request of Family Medical History 7. In compliance with section 300.655 of the Nursing Home Rules, Defendant requested Plaintiff to provide certain health information about herself. If the information Plaintiff provided did contain family medical history, Defendant inadvertently requested it. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 7 contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required Plaintiff denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of Defendant’s Answer, and respectfully refers the Court to Paragraphs 27-29 and 52 of the Complaint in support of her denials herein. 8. Section 25(g) of GIPA states, “inadvertently requesting family medical history by an employer … does not violate this Act.” 410 ILCS 513/25(g). ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 8 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 8, Plaintiff denies each of them. 9. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot recover damages against Defendant under GIPA. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 9 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 9, Plaintiff denies each of them. 6 Third Affirmative Defense FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311 Good Faith and Reasonable Reliance 10. To the extent that GIPA applies to Defendant’s conduct under the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant is not liable because it relied in good faith upon a reasonable interpretation of GIPA’s statutory language and its belief that it was not requesting genetic information of Plaintiff. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 10 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 10, Plaintiff denies each of them. Fourth Affirmative Defense Statute of Limitations 11. Although Plaintiff purports to limit the putative class to those “individuals, from the date five years prior to the date of the filing of this action to the date of class certification of this action (1) who applied for employment with Defendant or were employed by Defendant in Illinois, and (2) from whom Defendant, or an agent acting on behalf of Defendant, requested and/or obtained genetic information, including family medical history, in connection with the person’s application for employment or the person’s employment with Defendant,” Defendant currently lacks sufficient knowledge or information to identify when each putative class member’s claims may have arisen. The claims of the putative class are barred in whole or in part to the extent that they failed to bring their causes of action within the applicable statute of limitations. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff denies the allegations in paragraph 11 of Defendant’s Answer, and notes that Defendant should 7 have sufficient records in its possession to calculate the identity of each class member and FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311 when their claims arose. Fifth Affirmative Defense Federal Preemption 12. To the extent that members of the putative class are members of a union and subject to a collective bargaining agreement, their claims are preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 12 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 12, Plaintiff denies each of them. Furthermore, the collective bargaining agreement referenced in Paragraph 12, to the extent it even exists or is applicable, speaks for itself and Plaintiff refers the Court to that document for its contents. 13. Federal labor laws preempt Plaintiff’s GIPA claim, because it requires interpretation or administration under the collective bargaining agreement and the union acted as their exclusive bargaining agent under the agreement. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 13 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 13, Plaintiff denies each of them. Furthermore, the collective bargaining agreement referenced in Paragraph 13, to the extent it even exists or is applicable, speaks for itself and Plaintiff refers the Court to that document for its contents. 8 FILED DATE: 5/10/2023 5:19 PM 2023CH01311 14. Accordingly, this court must dismiss any putative class member subject to a collective bargaining agreement. ANSWER: Subject to Plaintiff’s contemporaneous Motion to Strike, Plaintiff states that Paragraph 14 of the Affirmative Defenses contains legal conclusions, to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required to the allegations in Paragraph 14, Plaintiff denies each of them. Dated: May 10, 2023 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Edward Wallace Edward A. Wallace Mark R. Miller Molly C. Wells WALLACE MILLER 150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60606 T. (312) 261-6193 E. eaw@wallacemiller.com mrm@wallacemiller.com mcw@wallacemiller.com Firm ID: 65958 Elizabeth Brehm Kyle McLean SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 T. 212-532-1091 E. ebrehm@sirillp.com kmclean@sirillp.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 9