Foster Chambers
Insert Your Address
Insert Your State & ZIP Code
Insert Your Phone Number
Insert Your Email
Plaintiff in pro per
IN THE XXXX DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF XXXX
EASTERN DIVISION
FOSTER CHAMBERS §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No.:
§
VILLAGE OF XXX; XXXX
XXXX
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
EX-PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
COMES NOW Foster Chambers, Plaintiff, and submits his Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of his Ex-Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
Dated this _____ day of XXXX
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Foster Chambers,
Plaintiff in pro per
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 2
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff hereby incorporates all paragraphs of his Complaint against Defendants by
reference as though set out in full herein. The claims, evidence and arguments in the Complaint
are identical, and there is no need to burden the Court with repetitive filing. However, Plaintiff
wishes to explain why more immediate relief is now requested.
RELEVANT STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff Foster Chambers is a law-abiding African-American male adult of sound mind
and a resident of Village of Oak Park, State of Illinois.
Plaintiff began a highland project at his property under his Caucasian wife’s name, Heidi
Boos, in 2016. Plaintiff sought a permit for the project from Defendant Village of Oak and was
informed that he could begin the demo as the permit process was still ongoing. Problems began
in 2017 when Defendants began issuing Plaintiff with frivolous tickets, failed to notice Plaintiff
that the frivolous tickets had been issued and later penalties were imposed for failure to pay the
tickets. The penalties amount to more than $30,000 in fines. Plaintiff did not receive a single
ticket until 2019.
Plaintiff began another project and that is when he met Defendant Cutia. Defendant Cutia
began enforcing rules that were never in place since Plaintiff began his previous project. He
issued Plaintiff with work early permits whereas work had not started on the property. Only the
demo had been done. It meant that Plaintiff was charged twice the amount he was supposed to
pay.
Plaintiff was issued with more than 30 tickets in regard to the second project he had
began. Specifically, he received 3 in regard to his fence. Each ticket was taken to court and the
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 3
judge informed Plaintiff what to do to avoid being in violation. Defendant Cutia should have
issued one ticket for the whole fence instead of a ticket for each adjacent side of the fence.
Plaintiff ended up paying thrice the amount and received 3 stop work orders for each ticket,
stripping him of 60 working days.
Defendant Cutia tampered with Plaintiff’s online portal so that he could not receive
important notifications. Defendant Cutia proceeded to issue a fine of $4,750 for a dumpster
permit that was approved and not collected. Plaintiff did not receive the notification that the
permit had been approved.
On February 6, 2019, Defendant Cutia went to Plaintiff’s property and threatened
Plaintiff’s employees telling them that they (Village of Oak Park) would bankrupt Plaintiff with
fines and that the employees should start looking for alternative employment. One of Plaintiff’s
employees who was on-site sent a message to Plaintiff and informed him of Defendant Cutia’s
threat.
Plaintiff strived to ensure compliance with the code enforcement to avoid issues with
Defendants to no avail. He began a third project. He informed the owners of his troubles with
Defendants. Plaintiff submitted all required forms for permits, attended meetings and got
approval to start the demo. The owners of the property became concerned and asked Plaintiff
why 1-2 Village of Oak Park-branded vehicles moving slowly down their alley 2-3 times a day.
A week after receiving a permit to start the demo of a back structure, Plaintiff received
papers to stop work because he did not have the correct permits. Apparently, Defendants had
failed to inform Plaintiff about the demo permit from Cook County, then proceeded to call Cook
County that Plaintiff did not have their permit. Plaintiff spoke to the head of division at Cook
County who said he had been notified of that. Plaintiff was issued with a ticket for performing
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 4
work, whereas he had only conducted a demo. He ended up paying double the amount he was
supposed to pay. Defendant Cutia did that on every project that Plaintiff undertook.
Plaintiff went to meet Defendant Grossman, Defendant Cutia’s supervisor, and told him
about Defendant Cutia’s conduct. He was called to Defendant Grossman’s office a week later
where he found Defendant Grossman and Defendant Cutia already present. Defendant Grossman
told Plaintiff, “I’ve known this man for years. I’m gonna go with him screw you, you better get
in line.”
Plaintiff is in possession of a FOIA request that Defendant Cutia responded to and an
email in which he referred to Plaintiff as “fucking monkey”, “retard”, and “nigger.” There is also
another email in which Defendant Cutia instructed an inspector to go and ticket Plaintiff for
whatever he could find.
In court, Plaintiff and another woman of Caucasian origin whose case was similar to that
of Plaintiff was handled differently by Defendant Dexter. Defendant Dexter requested a $25 fine
for Plaintiff but did not do that for the Caucasian woman.
On several occasions, Defendant Cutia and Defendant Dexter issued permits that they
should not have issued, then proceeded to call Cook County that Plaintiff had demo permits he
should not have had. Their main aim was to waste Plaintiff’s time. Plaintiff’s project was
protracted from 4-6 months to 2-3 years. As a result, Plaintiff has lost 2 properties to foreclosure
sales.
When Defendant Village of Oak realized it could not impose any more penalties on
Plaintiff, it proceeded to enforce the 90-day shut down if one did not have an inspection every 90
days. It began with Plaintiff’s fourth project. Plaintiff was informed that he had to pay a fine
equal to the permit fee. Plaintiff paid twice in different projects in protest. A year later, he
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 5
realized that he paid the wrong amount. The correct amount was supposed to be half of what
Plaintiff had already paid.
The fourth project had many bottlenecks installed by Defendants. Out of nowhere, the
design board began wrangles with Plaintiff and the project was stalled. Defendants Cutia and
Dexter issued Plaintiff with a demo permit. Afterwards, they called Cook County to have the
project shut down. They then proceeded to have the property condemned.
ARGUMENT
The Supreme Court has recognized that in some limited situations, a court may properly
issue ex parte orders of brief duration and limited scope to preserve the status quo pending a
hearing. Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-39, 94 S. Ct. 1113, 1123-24,
39 L. Ed. 2d. 435 (1974); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 180, 89 S. Ct. 347, 351, 21 L.
Ed. 2d. 325 (1968).
In addition, Rule 65(b) expressly contemplates the issuance of ex parte temporary
restraining orders. Nevertheless, the circumstances in which an ex parte order should be granted
are extremely limited. The “stringent restrictions” imposed on the availability of ex parte
temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the
notion of court action being taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has
been granted to both sides of a dispute. Ex parte temporary restraining orders are no doubt
necessary in certain circumstances, cf. Carroll v. President and Comm’rs of Princess Anne, 393
U.S. 175, 180, [89 S. Ct. 347, 351, 21 L. Ed. 2d. 325] (1968), but under federal law they should
be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 6
irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer. Granny Goose
Foods, supra, 415 U.S. at 438-39, 94 S. Ct. at 1124.
Where there are no practical obstacles to giving notice to the adverse party, an ex parte
order is justified only if there is no less drastic means for protecting the plaintiff’s interests.
XXXX.
Under the present circumstances, it would be ideal to grant Plaintiff an ex-parte
temporary restraining order against Defendants. Plaintiff understands that the ex-parte temporary
order will only maintain the status quo. The status quo is the damage upon Plaintiff as a result of
Defendants’ actions and omissions. In as much as the ex-parte temporary order will maintain the
status quo, it will prevent and/or mitigate further damage to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has no other means of protecting his interests other than the granting of a
temporary restraining order against Defendants. Defendants have made it clear that they are out
to bankrupt and destroy Plaintiff through frivolous fines and penalties, as well as other forms of
harassment, all under the guise of their employment and performance of their duties. Further,
their actions are fueled by racism and hate for Plaintiff, evidenced by the emails sent by
Defendant Cutia.
Plaintiff still continues to face harassment from Defendants. He has incurred and
continues to incur damage, including and limited to, mental anguish due to harassment and
financial losses in the form of improper fines. If this Court fails to grant the Ex-Parte Motion for
Restraining Order, Plaintiff will continue to experience damage and losses.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 7
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
THEREFORE, for the reasons supplied and upon the evidence submitted in connection with the
Complaint, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to GRANT his Ex-Parte Motion
for Temporary Restraining Order and subsequently sign the attached Proposed Order.
Dated this _____ day of XXXX.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
XXXXX,
Plaintiff in pro per
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF EX-PARTE MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 8
CERTIFICATE OF ATTORNEY AND NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
The undersigned certifies that:
1. On [Insert Date], the foregoing Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Ex-
Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order was electronically filed with the District
Court Clerk via CM/ECF filing system, sending service to:
Insert Attorney’s Name
Insert Attorney’s Address
Insert Attorney’s State & ZIP Code
Insert Attorney’s Phone Number
Insert Attorney’s Email
2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, the undersigned certified that, to his best information and
belief, there are no non-CM/ECF participants in this matter.
Dated this _____ day of XXXXX.
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
XXXXX,
Plaintiff in pro per
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )