# Appendix — Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0927%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1979 - **Citation:** 441 U.S. 91 ## Text Zz Supreme Court, U. Se") ' 77-1493 | FILED | } AUG $$ 1978 | APPENDIX i — . nn mine IR. CLERK In the Supreme Court of the United States OcroBeR Term, 1977 GLADSTONE, REALTORS,® et al., Petitioners, vs. VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD, et al, Respondents. ROBERT A. HINTZE, REALTORS,® et al., Petitioners, vs. VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD, et al., Respondents. On Petition For A Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Cireuit es UNITED STATES LAW PRINTING CO., CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60618 (312) 525-6581 Petition for Certiorari Filed April 19, 1978 Certiorari Granted June 12, 1978 Iu the Supreme Court of the United States Ocroser Term, 1977 GLADSTONE, REALTORS,® et al., Petitioners, vs. VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD, et al. Respondents. ROBERT A. HINTZE, REALTORS,® et al., Petitioners, vs. VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD, et al., Respondents. On Petition lor A Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Cireuit LIST OP CONTENTS Gladstone Case PAGE EE 1 EEE SE Te 4 TD 8 Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents ........ 9 i cesstnsuesnonenoen 12 Defendants’ Discovery Request 2.................c2cnceecceeeeeeee 14 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss ..........220000000000......... 23 Answers to Defendants’ Interrogatories and Requests EE ESL 25 Appendix A to Interrogatory Answers _........................ 32 Audit Report attached to Interrogatory Answers ........ 40 Edward Powell audit at Berkeley office ................ 40 EE 50 Lonnie Randolph audit at Berkeley office _............ 58 Lonnie Randolph audit at Westchester office ........ tt Edward Powell audit at Westchester office _........ 69 Charles Elliott and Kathleen Nichols audit at SASSI aoe eR 72 Charles Elliott and Vicki Simmons audit at West- Ec 74 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment ............ 78 District Court Order dated September 23, 1976 grant- ing summary judgment .....0.........2......sccsecceees seeduaniahiainale 83 ii PAGE District Court Memorandum Opinion dated Septem- 2), ae 83 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider .................20cec- 89 eT FO ee 91 District Court Order Denying Motion for Reconsidera- ae alte sina tiehbmcndaealaaiaindan 93 Hintze Case Biciwnmt Theainnt TemGCBe 0 ancccceccccccesececsesscosernsecccsvcsccensnnsscsces 95 CI ceccccecssecicecces eerste ccemnsnennvcenensensones shlttiaasintnaiaineianiiutian 97 Plaintiffs’ I[nterrogatories _........... sseliendialladiddaiinianiatiaipetitin 100 Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents ........ 102 Defendants’ Discovery Request ......------....---s-:-:s:eee0e 105 Plaintiffs’ Answers to Defendants’ Interrogatories and Requests for AGMISSION ~..........----..--sce-seecneeeneneneneeneeees 114 Appendix A to Interrogatory Answes. ................--..----- 121 Audit Report Forms attached as a part of Appendix A 128 8 Ee 128 Charles Elliott & Vicki Simmons audit ................ 130 Ny | | | ne 133 John Lindsey audit... ....0..-cecsesereeerseescsoses 139 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment ................ 143 District Court Order granting summary judgment .... 148 District Court Order denying motion to reconsider .... 149 Notice of Appeal . ................-..ccsssceseeessersserecresensemsesesanesesers 149 Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dated January 25, 1978 .................. 151 APPENDIX UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION VILLAGE OF BELLWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State of Illinois, THE LEADERSHIF COUNCIL FOR METROPOLITAN OPEN COMMUNITIES, 2@ not-for- profit corporation of Illinois, EDWARD B. POWELL, MARY P. POWELL, CHARLES ELLIOTT, VICKI SIM- MONS, SANDRA T. SHARP and JOYCE PERRY, Plaintiff s, - VS - GLADSTONE REALTORS, JAMES D. DOEHRING, ROBERT J. CASEY, TED WOLNIK, BEVERLEY RIC- CHUTO, WILLIAM JAKES, and CAROL HOSNEDL, Defendants. RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES 10/24/75 Filed complaint and 7 copies. (JS-5) 10/31/75 Filed plaintiff’s Interrogatories. 10/31/75 Filed plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents to be Inspected and Copies. msn 11/17/75 Filed defendants’ Notice of Filing; Motion to Dismiss. 2/ 9/76 Enter order dated 2/5/76: It appearing to the court that defendants herein filed their motion to dismiss the above cause on November 17, 1975. However, a check of the docket and file reveals that neither supporting nor opposing briefs 2/11/76 3/31/76 7/ 6/16 9/27/76 10/ 4/76 10-21-76 Relevant Docket Entries have been filed. It is therefore ordered that if defendants intend to support their motion by a brief, such brief shall be filed within ten days from this date; plaintiffs shail have ten days thereafter to file an opposing brief, and defen- dants five days thereafter for a reply brief. —Decker, J. Notices mailed 2/9/76 msa Filed Defendant’s Discovery Request. (First Wave) msn Enter order dated 3/29/76; Defendants moved on November 17, 1975 to dismiss the instant cause, asserting that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under either 42 USC 1982 or 42 USC 3604. On February 6, 1976 this court ordered defendants’ supporting brief to be filed within 10 days; none has been filed. Inasmuch as no brief has been filed and the complaint on its face does state a claim for relief under the above statutes, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.—Decker, J. Notices mailed 3/31/76 msn Filed defendants’ motion for summary judg. ment. Enter order dated September 23, 1976: Memo- randum Opinion filed. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and the cause is ordered dismissed. JS-6 Decker, J. Mailed notices 9/27/76 ag Filed plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider ag Filed plaintiffs’ notice of appeal $5.00 pd 3 Relevant Docket Entries 11-1-76 Enter order dated 10-29-76; Motion to reconsider taken under advisement.—Decker, J. Mailed notices 11-1-76 ij 11-8-76 Enter order dated November 5, 1976; The plain- tiffs have moved for reconsideration of this court’s order granting summary judgment in behalf of the defendants on the grounds that they lack standing to present their claim under the statutes utilized. The court feels that Topic v. Circle Realty, 532 F. 2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1976) is dispositive of this case and cannot be factual- ly distinguished. The inclusion of the munici- pality as a plaintiff does not alter the indirect nature of the injury asserted in the complaint. Topic offers a compelling construction of the statutory pattern, and deals with an issue not previously decided in this Cireuit. While the plaintiffs are free to attempt to persuade the Seventh Circuit to disagree with the view ex- pressed in Topic, the court finds no basis for altering its previous opinion. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider is hereby denied. —Decker, J. Notice mailed 11-8-76 gg 4 Complaint UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) COMPLAINT (Filed October 24, 1975.) Now Come the Plaintiffs, Village of Bellwood, a munici- pal corporation of the State of Illinois, The Leadership Council For Metropolitan Open Communities, a not-for- profit corporation of the State of Illinois, Edward B. Powell, Mary P. Powell, Charles Elliott, Vicki Simmons, Sandra T. Sharp, and Joyce Perry, by their attorneys F. Willis Caruso and David J. Parsons, and complain of De- fendants, Gladstone Realtors, James D. Doehring, Robert J. Casey, Ted Wolnik, Beverley Ricchuto, William Jakes, and Carol Hosnedl, as follows: 1. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. §1982 and 42 U.S.C. $§ 3601 et seq. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 U.S.C. §1343(4) and §2201, and 42 U.S.C. §3612. 2. Plaintiff, Village of Bellwood, is a municipal corpo- ration of Illinois located in the County of Cook. 3. Plaintiff, The Leadership Council For Metropolitan Open Communities, is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation charged with providing for equal opportunity in housing and the elimination of discrimination in housing in the six- county Chicago metropolitan area. 4. Plaintiffs, Sandra T. Sharp and Joyce Perry are and were at all times relevant hereto black citizens of the United States of America who reside in Cook County, Llli- nos. Complaint 5. Plaintiffs, Edward B. Powell, Mary P. Powell, Charles Elliott, and Vicki Simmons, are and were at all times relevant hereto white citizens of the United States of America who reside in Cook County, Illinois. 6. Defendant, Gladstone Realtors, is an Illinois real estate business with offices located at 10401 W. Cermak Road, Westchester, and 5331 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, in the County of Cook and the State of Illinois. 7. Upon information and belief Defendants, James D. Doehring, Robert J. Casey, Ted Wolnick, William Jakes, Carol Hosnedl and Beverley Ricchuto are real estate sales- persons and agents of Defendant, Gladstone Realtor. 8. On or about September 15, 1975 and prior thereto and continuing to the date thereof, Defendants, Gladstone Realtors, James D. Doehring, Robert J. Casey, Ted Wol- nik, Beverley Ricchuto, William Jakes, and Carol Hosnedl, undertook efiorts to influence the choice of prospective homebuyers on the basis of race, and discouraged prospec- tive black homebuyers from purchasing homes in white ureas on the basis of race, thereby engaging in unlawful racial steering in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1982 and 41 U.S.C. $3604 in an area described as follows: An area bound on the North by the Northwestern Railroad, on the East by Belt Lines Railroad, on the South by the Eisenhower Ex- pressway and on the West by Mannheim Road. The home- buyers who are affected are those in the above area; and those whe used or sought to use the services of Defendant, Gladstone Realtor, and may have been so influenced or dis- couraged based on race. 9. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants acted intentionally and maliciously and were guilty of wilful and wanton disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs. 6 Complaint 10. Such acts and practices complained of hamper and interfere with the work and purpose of the Plaintiff, The Leadership Council For Metropolitan Open Communities and cost The Leadership Council For Metropolitan Open Communities money to provide an audit and other efforts to eliminate such unlawful acts. 11. Plaintiff, Village of Bellwood, has been injured by having the housing market in such village wrongfully and illegally manipulated to the economic and social detriment of the citizens of such village. 12. The individual Plaintiffs have been denied their right to select housing without regard to race and have been deprived of the social and professional benefits of living in an integrated society. 13. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, or other- wise, for the harm done by Defendants, and Plaintiffs are suffering great and irreparable loss and will continue to suffer great and irreparable loss unless the acts and con- duct of Defendants are enjoined. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray: (1) That the Court declare individual Plaintiffs cannot be denied the right to inspect, negotiate for purchase of, and/or purchase homes on the basis of race; (2) That the Court issue an injunction permanently re- straining and enjoining Defendants from illegal racial steering, and enjoining Defendants from any efforts to il- legally influence the choice of prospective homebuyers from purchasing homes in particular areas because of race, and/ or from encouraging prospective homebuyers to purchase a home in particular areas based on race; 7 Complaint (3) That the Court grant actual damages of One Hun- drd Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) exemplary and/or punitive damages each to the Village of Bellwood, and The Leadership Coun- cil For Metropolitan Open Communities; (4) That the Court grant actual damages and exem- plary and/or punitive damages of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) each to Edward B. Powell, Mary P. Powell, Charles Elliott, Vicki Simmons, Sandra T. Sharp and Joyce Perry; (5) That the Court grant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. /s/ F. Willis Caruso Attorney for the Plaintiffs F. Willis Caruso = 407 So. Dearborn Street Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 341-9345 David J. Parsons Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson 55 East Monroe 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 346-8000 Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES (Filed October 31, 1975.) Now Come Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, and propound the following interrogatories to be answered under oath by the defendants individually. 1. State your full name. With respect to the corporate defendant, state the nature of the business entity, the date founded, all predecessors and successors and assigns. State the name and authority of the person answering for the corporate defendant. 2. State the names and addresses of all other persons having knowledge or information of the matters and inci- dents described in the Complaint filed in this case. State whether any statements were obtained from any of these persons by you, your agents, or your attorneys, the name and address of each such person, and the date of such state- ment; if so, attach a copy of each such written statement. /s/ F. Willis Caruso Attorney for Plaintiffs F. Willis Caruso 407 So. Dearborn Street Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 341-9345 David J. Parsons Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson 55 E. Monroe 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 346-8000 9 Request for Documents UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN LIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO BE INSPECTED AND COPIED (Filed October 31, 1975.) Plaintiffs, by their attorney, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure request Defendant Glad- stone Realtors to produce designated documents as de- scribed below at 2:00 p.m. on the 25th day of November, 1975, at the offices of Gladstone Realtors, 10401 W. Cermak Road, Westchester, Illinois. At which time the Plaintiffs, said attorney, and persons acting on their behalf shall be allowed to inspect and copy documents described as follows: 1. All listings of residential real estate either listed ex- clusively with Gladstone Realtors or available to said de- fendant for sale through multiple listing or otherwise from October 1, 1974 through October 25, 1975. 2. All office documents relating to residential real estate available for sale including, but not limited to, lists, memo- randa, reports, reports of listed properties, sale reports and the like from October 1, 1974 through October 25, 1975. 3. All documents relating to names, addresses and tele- phone numbers of prospects for purchase of residential property, talked to, contacted and/or interviewed by sales personnel of Defendant Corporation, including, but not limited to, prospect cards, notes, memoranda, telephone 10 Request for Documents prospect sheets or cards, call-back lists, reports of show- ings, reports of prospects, prospect books and the like from October 1, 1974 through October 25, 1975. 4. All documents showing the addresses of all residen- tial real estate shown and/or offered to the prospects re- vealed by the documents requested in 3 above. 5. All newspaper ads and other advertisements for all properties listed for sale including ads for individual homes as well as display ads from October 1, 1974 throug October 25, 1975. 6. All records and documents showing contracts entered into and sales consummated by the Defendant Corporation and its predecessor from October 1, 1974 through October 25, 1975 including, but not limited to all documents show- ing: a) the address of properties sold; b) address of Defendant Corporation’s office consum- mating said sale; c) name or names of salespersons consummating said sale for Defendant Corporation; d) names of salespersons sharing in or paid a commis- sion for said sale; e) whether any of the above sales were as a result of referrals from other real estate entities; f) names, addresses and race of the persons purchasing said properties; g) the immediate prior address of the persons pur- chasing said properties; and ll Request for Documents h) names, race and present address of the sellers of said properties. /s/ F. Willis Caruso Attorney for Plaintiffs F. Willis Caruso 407 So. Dearborn Street Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 341-9345 David J. Parsons Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson 55 E. Monroe 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 346-8000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Rachael Davis, being duly sworn on oath deposes and states that she mailed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Interroga- tories, Plaintiffs’ Request For Production of Documents To Be Inspected And Copied, as well as Notice of Filing, to James D. Doehring, 10401 W. Cermak Road, West- chester, Illinois and 5331 St. Charles Road, Berkeley, Illi- nois, by depositing true and correct copies of same in the United States mailbox at 407 So. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60605, this 3lst day of October, 1975, at or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. /s/ Rachael Davis Rachael Davis Subscribed to and sworn before me this 31st day of October, 1975. /s/ Della Brunson Notary Public My Commission expires Oct. 19, 1979 (Seal) 12 Notice; Motion to Dismiss UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) NOTICE OF FILING (Filed November 17, 1975.) To: F. Willis Caruso Attorney for i iaintiffs 407 S. Dearborn Street Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 Please Take Notice that on the 17th day of November, 1975, we filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, a copy of which is herewith served upon you. Jonathan T. Howe Attorney for Defendants Jenner & Block One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 222-9350 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants move this court for an order dis- missing the complaint in the above-entitled cause on the following grounds: 1. This Court lacks jurisdiction in this case because the complaint does not state a cause of action under 42 13 Motion to Dismiss U.S.C. §1982 or 42 U.S.C. §$3601 et seq. ‘‘Racial steering’ as alleged in the complaint does not state a violation of 42 U.S.C. §1982 and §3604, even if the allegations were true. 2. Since as a matter of law the allegations do not state a cause of action under the above statutes, this Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. $1343 (4), 28 U.S.C. §2201, and 42 U.S.C. §3612. No other ground for jurisdiction is alleged or proper in this case. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jonathan T. Howe Jonathan T. Howe Attorney for Defendants Jenner & Block One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 222-9350 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Dorothy Keller, on oath deposes and states that she caused a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing and Motion to Dismiss to be served on F. Willis Caruso, Attorney for Plaintiff:, 407 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1360, Chicago, Illinois 60605, by placing a true and correct copy of same in an envelope, properly addressed with postage prepaid and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at One IBM Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60611, this 17th day of November, 1975. /s/ Dorothy Keller Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of November, 1975. /s/ Ruth Schwoegler Notary Public (Seal) 14 Defendants’ Discovery Request IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY REQUEST (First Wave) (Filed February 11, 1976) As their first wave discovery request in this case, defen- dants submit the following Interrogatories, Request to Product (sic.) and Request to Admit to plaintiffs: INTERROGATORIES Il. With respect to each plaintiff, (a) State his full name and each other name by which he has been known since age 18. (b) State his present home address and each other address at which he has resided since age 18, indicat- ing the dates of each such residence. (c) State his home telephone number. (d) State his social security number. (e) Identify his present employer and each other employer since age 18. (f) Identify each officer, di.ector and principal managing agent of plaintiff The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities and with respect to each officer and principal managing agent describe his duties in that capacity. (g) Identify each official or agent of plaintiff Vil- lage of Bellwood who has authorized the bringing of this suit on its behalf. (h) Identify each official and agent of the Village of Bellwood who has knowledge of the injury alleged in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. ed . 15 Defendants’ Discovery Request (i) Identify each officer and agent of plaintiff The Leadership Council who has knowledge of the money expended by said plaintiff to provide the audit and other efforts referred to in paragraph 10 of the Com- plaint. (j) Identify the officer or agent of plaintiff The Leadership Council who is best able to testify to the types of records maintained and to the record keeping and filing procedures of said party. (k) If any of the plaintiffs are members of a Block Club, identify the Block Club and each officer, principal managing agent and spokesperson therefor. (1) If any of the individual plaintiffs is or has Leen a party to a lawsuit (other than the instant case) or a defendant in a criminal case, state with respect to each such plaintiff the full caption of the case (in- cluding case number, court and all parties) and give a brief description of the nature of the case. I2. With respect to the allegations contained in para- graph 8 of the Complaint: (a) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of an effort on his part to influence the choice of prospective homebuyers on the basis of race. (b) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of his discouraging prospective black homebuyers from pur- chasing homes in white areas on the basis of race. (c) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of his engaging in unlawful racial steering in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and 41 (sic.) U.S.C. § 3604. 16 Defendants’ Discovery Request (d) Identify each homebuyer who you contend used or sought to use the services of Gladstone Realtor and whose choice was influenced on the basis of race. (e) Identify each homebuyer who used or sought to use the services of Gladstone Realtor who was dis- couraged from purchasing a home on the basis of race. 13. Identify each person whom plaintiffs expect to call as an expert witness at trial and with respect to each: (a) State the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify. (b) State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify. (c) State a summary of the grounds for each said opinion. (d) State the title of the case, case number, court and date(s) on which said expert has testified (either at trial or in deposition) on behalf of any plaintiff herein or on the same subject matter as his expected testimony herein. I4. With respect to the allegations contained in para- graph 10 of the Complaint: (a) State the amount of money expended by The Leadership Council to provide an audit. (b) Identify the recipients of all said moneys. I5. Do you contend that the Village of Bellwood has expended money as a result of any of defendants’ activities which are complained of in the Complaint herein? (a) If the answer is yes, state the amount of money so expended by the Village of Bellwood. (b) Identify the recipients of all said moneys. I6. With respect to each oral conversation between or among each plaintiff, or anyone purporting to act on his 17 Defendants’ Discovery Request (their) behalf, and each defendant, or anyone purporting to act on his (their) behalf, from January 1, 1975 to the present time: (a) Identify the parties to the conversation. (b) State the date of the conversation. (c) State the location of the conversation and iden- tify all persons present. (d) If the conversation was by phone, state who called whom. (e) State what was said by each party to the con- versation or, if unable to do so, state the substance of what was said by each party to the conversation and indicate that it is the substance rather than the exact words that is being reported. I7. Do plaintiffs contend that each of the defendants discouraged prospective black homebuyers from purchas- ing homes in white areas on the basis of race? (a) If the answer is yes, with respect to each de- fendant identify the black homebuyer and state the date of the discouragement. (b) If the answer is no, identify those defendants as to whom you claim such activity and with respect to each identify the black homebuyer and state the date of the discouragement. I8. Identify each person not heretofore identified in response to Interrogatory I1 through Interrogatory I7, both inclusive, who has knowledge of any fact upon which the Complaint herein is based and with respect to each such person state the substance of the facts as to which he has knowledge. 19. Have plaintiffs withheld any documents called for in the Request to Produce submitted herewith because of 18 Defendants’ Discovery Request a claim of privilege or work product? If the answer 1s yes, state with regard to each such document: (a) The date of the document. (b) The nature of the document (e.g. letter, memo- randum, tape recording, etc.). (c) The author of the document. (d) The subject matter of the document. (e) The length of the document. (f) The addressee of the document. Sha (g) Identify all persons known to plaintiffs to have seen the document or a copy thercof. (h) The nature of the privilege or work product claim. REQUEST TO PRODUCE Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure plaintiffs are requested to produce for inspection and copying by attorneys for defendants the following designated documents. The production is to be made in the law offices of Jenner & Block, 43rd Floor, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60611 commencing at 10:00 a.m., March 1, 1976: . R1. Each document which relates or refers to or which is evidence of each act and communication identified by plaintiffs in response to interrogatory 12, including with- out limitation each document to which plaintiffs referred or which they used to refresh their recollection in verify- ing the answer to interrogatory [2. R2. The curriculum vitae for each expert witness named in response to interrogatory I3. R3. Each previous deposition transcript and previous transcript of trial testimony of each expert witness identi- fied in the answer to interrogatory I3. 19 Defendants’ Discovery Request R4. Each document which refers or relates to or which is evidence of the amount of money and recipients of said money stated in response to interrogatory I4, including without limitation each document to which plaintiffs re- ferred or which they used to refresh their recollection in verifying the answer to interrogatory I4, RS. Each document which refers or relates to or which is evidence of the amount of money and recipients of said money stated in response to interrogatory 15, including without limitation each document to which plaintiffs re- ferred or which they used to refresh their recollection in verifying the answer to interrogatory I5. R6. Each document which relates or refers to, which is evidence of, or which purports to summarize, either wholly or in part, each conversation identified in response to interrogatory I6. R7. Each document which relates or refers to or which is evidence of each fact stated in response to interrogatory I7, including without limitation each document to which plaintiffs referred or which they used to refresh their rec- ollection in verifying the answer to interrogatory I7. R8. Each document which refers or relates to or which is the product of the audit referred to in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. R9. Each document which was produced by or received by plaintiffs, and each of them, from January 1, 1975 to the present time which refers to each and any of the fol- lowing: (a) James D. Doehring (b) Robert J. Casey (c) Ted Wolnik (d) Beverly Ricchiuto (e) William Jakes 20 Defendants’ Discovery Request (f) Carol Hosnedl (g) Complaints of racial steering by Gladstone Realtors. R10. Each document which contains instructions to the testers to conduct an audit concerning defendants. Ril. Each document which purports to summarize or collate the results of the audit concerning defendants. R12. Each document sent to each defendant by each plaintiff (with the exception of the Village of Bellwood) and each document received by each plaintiff (with the ex- ception of the Village of Bellwood) from each defendant from January 1, 1975 to the present time. R13. Each document which purports to instruct the testers in the procedure to be followed in conducting an audit. R14. Each document which plaintiffs’ contend con- stitutes evidence of the economic and social detriment suf- fered by the citizens of the Village of Bellwood as a result of defendants’ conduct. R15. Each document which plaintiffs intend to introduce in evidence at the trial of this case and each document which plaintiffs intend to use to refresh the recollections of witnesses whom they intend to call in this case. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure plaintiffs are requested to admit the truth of the following matters: Al. None of the individual plaintiffs who had conver- sations with the defendants had the intention at the time of said conversations of purchasing a home. A2. None of the individual plaintiffs who had conver- sations with the defendants informed the defendants that —_ oe 21 Defendants’ Discovery Request they were conducting an audit on behalf of The Leader- ship Council For Metropolitan Open Communities. A3. None of the individual plaintiffs has had any con- versation or business contact with defendant Ted Wolnik. A4. None of the individual plaintiffs has had any con- versation or business contact with defendant Beverly Ric- chiuto. DEFINITIONS As used in this discovery request the following words and phrases are defined as shown below: 1. ‘‘Document’’ means any writing, drawing, graph, chart, photograph, tape recording, wire recording, computer print-out and other data compilation from which infor- mation can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by plain- tiffs through detection devices into reasonably usable form. 2. ‘‘Identify’’ when referring to an employer means the business name, address and phone number of the en- tity for whom plaintiff works or worked and the name and last known address of plaintiff’s immediate supervisor on said job. 3. ‘‘Identify’’ when referring to a person means his full name and last known address, telephone number, busi- ness affiliation and job title. 4. ‘‘Identify’’ when referring to an act means to de- scribe the act, state the date of the act, name the actor and identify all known witnesses to the act. 5. ‘‘Identify’’ when referring to a communication means to state the date and content of the oral communication identifying all parties and witnesses to the oral communi- eation and stating what was said by each and means to state the date, author and type of document of a written communication. Defendants’ Discovery Request 6. When used herein the masculine gender of pronouns is meant to include the feminine gender as well and singular nouns are meant to include the plural as well. Russell J. Hoover Russell J. Hoover One of the Attorneys for Defendants Jonathan T. Howe Russell J. Hoover JENNER & BLOCK One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 222-9350 Attorneys for Defendants PROOF OF SERVICE Margrett Kontek on oath states that she served a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Discovery Request (First Wave) in case No. 75 C 3587 by placing same in an envelope addressed to F. Willis Caruso, Esq., 407 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1360, Chicago, Illinois 60605, with proper, prepaid postage affixed thereto and by placing same in the United States Government mail chute at One IBM Plaza, Chicago, Illinois on Monday, February 2, 1976 before the hour of 4:00 p.m. Margrett Kontek SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2nd day of February, 1976. Virginia Blaski Notary Public (Notary Seal) 23 Order UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (Filed March 29, 1976) Defendants moved on November 17, 1975, to dismiss the instant cause, asserting that the complaint failed to state a cause of action under either 42 U.S.C. §1982 or 42 U.S.C. $3604. On February 6, 1976, this court ordered defendants’ supporting brief to be filed within 10 days; none has been filed. Inzsmuch as no brief has been filed, and the com- plaint on its face does state a claim for relief under the above statutes, the motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED. BP rnard M. Decker Judge 24 Notice of Filing UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) NOTICE OF FILING (Filed April 2, 1976) TO: Jonathan T. Howe Jenner & Block One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the 2nd day of April, 1976, we filed with the clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Answers to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, copies of which are herewith served upon you. ae F. Willis Caruso F. Willis Caruso Attorney for Plaintiffs F. Willis Caruso Marie V. Sanon 407 So. Dearborn Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 341-9345 “—- 25 Answers to First Interrogatories UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) ANSWERS TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 33, Plaintiffs, Village of Bellwood, a municipal corporation of the State of Illinois, The Leadership Council For Metro- politan Open Communities, a not-for-profit corporation of Illinois, Edward B. Powell, Mary P. Powell, Charles El- liott, Vicki Simmons, Sandra T. Sharp and Joyce Perry, hereby answers the interrogatories meee by Defen- dants, as follows: Il. With respect to each plaintiff, (a) State his full name and each other name by which he has been known since age 18. Answer: See Appendix A* (b) State his present home address and each other address at which he has resided since age 18, indicating the dates of each such residence. Answer: See Appendix A* (c) State his home telephone number. Answer: See Appendix A* (d) State his social security number. Answer: See Appendix A* (e) Identify his present employer and each other em- ployer since age 18. Answer: See Appendix A* (f) Identify each officer, director and principal man- aging agent of plaintiff The Leadership Council For Metro- Answers to First Interrogatories politan Open Communities and with respect to each officer and principal managing agent describe his duties in that capacity. Answer: See Appendix B, Kale Williams, Executive Director of the Leadership Council, 407 So. Dearborn, Suite 1360, Chicago, Illinois, 60605. Thomas G. Ayers, Chairman, Frederick G. Jaicks, President, and Edwin C. Berry, Vice President. (g) Identify each official or agent of plaintiff Village of Bellwood who has authorized the bringing of this suit on its behalf. Answer: See Appendix E. (h) Identify each official and agent of the Village of Bellwood who has knowledge of the injury alleged in para- graph 11 of the Complaint. Answer: See Appendix E. (i) Identify each officer and agent of plaintiff The Leadership Council who has knowledge of the money ex- pended by said plaintiff to provide the audit and other efforts referred to in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. Answer: Kale Williams, Executive Director, 407 So. Dearborn, Suite 1360, Chicago, Illinois 60605. (j) Identify the officer or agent of plaintiff The Leader- ship Council who is best able to testify to the types of records maintained and to the record keeping and filing procedures of said party. Answer: Kale Williams, Executive Director, 407 So. Dearborn, Suite 1360, Chicago, Illinois 60605. (k) If any of the plaintiffs are members of a Block Club, identify the Block Club and each officer, principal managing agent and spokesperson thereof. Answer: See Appendix A’. 27 Answers to First Interrogatories (1) If any of the individual plaintiffs is or has been a party to a lawsuit (other than the instant case) or a de- fendant in a criminal case, state with respect to each such plaintiff the full caption of the case (including case num- ber, court and all parties) and give a brief description of the nature of the case. Answer: Objection: Irrelevant, immaterial, not dis- eoverable. However, plaintiffs state that they have suf- fered no criminal conviction other than minor traffic con- victions. 12. With respect to the allegations contained in para- graph 8 of the Complaint: (a) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of an effort on his part to (influence the choice of prospective homebuyers on the basis of race.) Answer: The act of Defendants which allegedly violate 42 U.S.C. $1982 and 42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq. are the subject matter of the audit reports. 1) With respect to Plaintiff Edward Powell, See Appendix A. 2) With respect to Plaintiff Mary P. Powell, See Appendix A. 3) With respect to Plaintiff Charles Elliott, See Ap- pendix A. 4) With respect to Plaintiff Vicki Simmons, See Ap- pendix A. 5) With respect to Plaintiff Joyce Perry, See Ap- pendix A. 6) With respect to Plaintiff Sandra J. Sharp, See Ap- pendix A. (b) Identify each act and/or communication of each de- fendant which you contend is evidence of his discouraging 28 Answers to First Interrogatories prospective black homebuyers from purchasing homes in white areas on the basis of race. Answer: See answer to I2(a). (c) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of his en- gaging in unlawful racial steering in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1982 and 41 (sic.) U.S. §3604. Answer: See answer to [2(a). (d) Identify each homebuyer who you contend used or sought to use the services of Gladstone Realtor and whose choice was influenced on the basis of race. Answer: The plaintiff auditors were acting in the ca- pacity of homebuyers. See Appendix A. (e) Identify each homebuyer who used or sought to use the services of Gladstone Realtor who was discour- aged from purchasing a home on the basis of race. Answer: See answer to [2(d). I3. Identify each person whom plaintiffs expect to eall as an expert witness at trial and with respect to each: (a) State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify. Answer: Pierre DeVise; Demographics. (b) State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify. Answer: See Appendix D. (c) State a summary of the grounds for each said opinion. Answer: See Appendix D. (d) State the title of the case, case number, court and date(s) on which said expert has testified (either at trial or in deposition) on behalf of said plaintiff herein or on the same subject matter as his expected testimony herein. Answers to First Interrogatories Answer: Metropolitan Housing Development Corpo- ration v. Arlington Heights, 517 F.2d 409 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. I4. With respect to the allegations contained in para- graph 10 of the Complaint: (a) State the amount of money expended by the Lead- ership Council to provide an audit. Answer: $375.00. (b) Identify the recipients of all said moneys. Answer: John Woltjen, 407 So. Dearborn, Suite 1360, Chicago, Illinois 60605. I5. Dv vou contend that the Village of Bellwood has expended money 9s a result of any of defendants’ activi- ties which are complained of in the Complaint herein? Answer: No. (a) If the answer is yes, state the amount of money so expended by the Village of Bellwood. Answer: Not Applicable. (b) Identify the recipients of all said moneys. Answer: Not Applicable. 16. With respect to each oral conversation between or among each plaintiff, or anyone purporting to act on his (their) behalf, and each defendant, or anyone purporting to act on his (their) behalf, from January 1, 1975 to the present time: (a) Identify the parties to the conversation. Answer: See Appendix A. (b) State the date of the conversation. Answer: See Appendix A. (c) State the location of the conversation and identify all persons present. Answer: See Appendix A. 30 Answers to First Interrogatories (d) If the conversation was by phone, state who called whom. Answer: See Appendix A. (e) State what was said by each party to the conversa- tion or, if unable to do so, state the substance of what was said by each party to the conversation and indicate that it is the substance rather than the exact words that is being reported. Answer: See narratives in audit reports, Appendix A. The individual plaintiffs have from time to time conversed with each other, however, the substance and dates of those conversations are not specifically available, but are em- bodied in Appendix A. I7. Do plaintiffs contend that each of the defendants discouraged prospective black homebuyers from purchas- ing homes in white areas on the basis of race? Answer: Yes, the individual plaintiffs in this matter were auditors acting in the capacity of homebuyers. (a) If the answer is yes, with respect to each defendant identify the black homebuyer and state the date of the discouragement. Answer: See Appendix A. (b) If the answer is no, identify those defendants as to whom you claim such activity and with respect to each identify the black homebuyer and state the date of the discouragement. Answer: Not Applicable. I8. Identify each person not heretofore identified in response to Interrogatory I1 through Interrogatory I7, both inclusive, who has knowledge of any fact upon which the Complaint herein is based and with respect to each such person state the substance of the facts as to which he has knowledge. 31 Answers to First Interrogatories Answer: Lonnie Randolph conducted an audit, See Ap- pendix A. John Lindsey conducted an audit, See Appendix A. Kathleen Nichols conducted an audit, See Appendix A. Sandra Sharp is a plaintiff who resides in Bellwood, who has read the answers to interrogatories. I9. Have plaintiffs withheld any documents called for in the Request to Produce submitted herewith because of a claim of privilege or work product? If the answer is yes, state with regard to each such document: Answer: No. (a) The date of the document. Answer: Not Applicable. (b) The nature of the document (e.g, letter, memoran- dum, tape recording, etc.). Answer: Not Applicable. (ce) The author of the document. Answer: Not Applicable. (d) The subject matter of the document. Answer: Not Applicable. (e) The length of the document. Answer: Not Applicable. (f) The addressee of the document. Answer: Not Applicable. (g) Identify all persons known to plaintiffs to have seen the document or a copy thereof. Answer: Not Applicable. (h) The nature of the privilege or work product clai Answer: Not Applicable. 32 Answers to First Interrogatories REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure plaintiffs admit the truth to the following matters: Al. None of the individual plaintiffs who had conver- sations with the defendants had the intention at the time of said conversations of purchasing a home. Answer: Admit. A2. None of the individual plaintiffs who had conver- sations with the defendants informed the defendants that they were conducting an audit on behalf of the Leadership Council For Metropolitan Open Communities. Answer: Admit. A3. None of the individual plaintiffs has had any con- versation or business contact with defendant Ted Wolnik. Answer: Admit. A4. None of the individual plaintiffs has had any con- versation or business contract with defendant Beverley Ric- chuto. Answer: Admit. Appendix A® Vicki Simmons 4004 Warren Ave. Bellwood, JL 544-4375 SS#—336-40-9073 Previous Address— 7340 Wrightwood, Elmwood Park 2137 No. Nagle, Chicago Mary P. Powell (Mary P. Puricelli) 111 30th Ave. Bellwood, IL 544-7691 SS#—320-42-5915 33 Answers to First Interrogatories Previous Address— 2115 25th Ave., Broadview, IL—6/69-2/71 17 Ashbel, Hillside, IL—1948-6/69 Charles L. Elliott 3211 Jackson Bellwood, IL—1967-Present 544-2803 SS#—349-32-4252 Previous Address— 4210 N. Kimball, Chicago,—1954-1963 4108-6 Melrose—1963-1967 Kathleen Nichols 928 Bellwood Bellwood, IL 544-0081 SS#—Refused to Release Previous Address-— 5229 W. Race—1952-1969 2402 N. New England, Chicago—1969-1974 Lonnie Randolph 12101 S. Emerald Chicago, IL—1974-Present 928-6556 SS#—307-54-8254 Previous Address— 4950 Kennedy, East Chicago, IN 625 W. Wrightwood—1973-1974 Employer: Masonite Corp., 17050 Lathrop Ave., Harvey, IL Mobil Oil Leadership Council, 407 So. Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 34 Answers to First Interrogatories John Lindsey 7343 Prairie Chicago, IL—1974-Present 224-5512 SS#—353-30-0044 Previous Address— 2801 King Drive, Chicago, IL—1968-1970 2951 King Drive, Chicago, IL—1971-1974 Joyce Perry 134 Granville Bellwood, IL 544-5074 SS#—274-42-0584 Previous Address— 1668 Bryn Mawr, E. Cleveland, OH, 1967-1971 1412 Madison, Maywood, [L—1971-1975 Sandra J. Sharp 1401 8. 16th Ave. Maywood, IL 345-1762 SS#—339-36-4853 Previous Address— 228 N. LaCrosse, Chicago, IL—1970-to-date 4639 W. West End Ave., Chicago, IL—1965-1966 513 N. Homan Ave., Chicago, IL—1964-1965 Edward B. Powell 111 30th Ave. Bellwood, IL 544-7691 SS #—358-34-1199 Previous Address— 2115 25th Ave., Broadview, IL--1969-1971 159 Bode Road, Hoffman Estate, IL—1968-1969 552 N. Avers, Chicago, IL—1955-1969 35 Answers to First Interrogatories EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION Lonnie Randolph Standard Oil of Indiana, Whiting, Indiana Inland Steel, East Chicago, Indiana Atlantic Richfield, East Chicago, Indiana Citeo Oil Refinery Walgreen Co., Chicago, Illinois Mobil Oil Corp., Niles, Illinois Masonite Corp., Chicago, Illinois Leadership Council, Chicago, Illinois—Present Block Club: None Never a criminal defendant Other Litigation: Randolph vs. Rynberk, 74 C 3671 John Lindsey Chicago Board of Education Leo Burnett Advertising Agency Tuesday Publications Living Together Publications Leadership Council,—Present Block Club: 73rd & Prairie; Pres. George Lee Never a criminal defendant Other Litigation: None Vicki Simmons Capon Drugs, Beakley, IL Block Club: Bellwood Block Club; Chairman—Ross Ferraro Chairwoman—.Jean Keating; Treasurer—-Joyce Lev; Secretary—Vicki Simmons Never a criminal defendant Other Litigation: None Mary P. Powell Stanadyne, Bellwood, IL Block Club: None 36 Answers to First Interrogatories Never a criminal defendant Other Litigation: Bellwood v. Gladstone Realty, 75 C 3587 ; Bellwood v. Hintze, 75 C 3589; Bellwood v. Dwayne Realty, 75 C 3588 Edward B. Powell MTTR Associates, Westchester, IL Four Phase System, Des Plaines, IL Servitech, Inc., Westchester, IL Hypertech, Inc., Harwood Heights, IL Xerox Data Systems, Chicago, IL First National Bank of Chicago, Chicago, IL Block Club: None Never a criminal defendant Other Litigation: Meade Electric vs. Powell, 75 Mi 112178; Bellwood v. Gladstone, 75 C 3587; Bellwood v. Dwayne, 75 C 3588; Bellwood v. Hintze, 75 C 3589 Charles Elliott Oscar Mayer & Co., Chicago, Illinois Fredricks Catering Service, Oak Park, Illinois Lincoln Bottling Co., Chicago, Illinois Alloy Automotive Co., Chicago, Illinois Keebler Co., Elmhurst, Illinois Motorola, Inc., Chicago, Illinois Brunswick Corp., Skokie, Illinois—Present Block Club: Bellwood Block Club; Chairman—Ross Fer- raro, Chairwoman—Jean Keating, Treasurer—Joyce Lev, Secretary—Vicki Simmons Never a criminal defendant Other Litigation: Bellwood vs. Hintze, 75 C 3589; Bell- wood v. Dwayne Realty, 75 C 3588; Bellwood v. Glad- stone, 75 C 3587 Kathleen Nichols Government employee (Refused to be more specific) Block Club: None 37 Answers to First Interrogatories Never a criminal defendant Other Litigation: None Sandra Sharp Village of Maywood—Present School District +89 Tetailers Commercial Agency Block Club: None Never a criminal defendant Other Litigation: Plaintiff in Sandra 7’. Sharp and Carolyn Bailey v. School District #89, 1973; Bellwood v. Hintze *Plaintiff Sandra Sharp is a citizen of Bellwood who has read the Answers to Interrogatories. Joyce Perry Lenerae Electric, Cleveland, Ohio Calvert Distillers, Cleveland, Ohio Guiliford & Sons, Cleveland, Ohio Lenerae Electric, Broadview, IL Lien Chemical Co., Franklin Park, IL Block Club: None Never a criminal defendant Other Litigation: Bellwood v. Dwayne, 75 C 3588 /s/ Kale Williams Kale Williams Subscribed to and sworn before me this 2 day of April, 1976. (Seal) /s/ David A. Schucker Notary Public My Commission Expires November 15, 1977 F. Willis Caruso Marie Sanon 407 So. Dearborn St. Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 341-9345 38 Answers to First Interrogatories /s/ Charles Elliott Charles Elliott Subscribed to and sworn before me this 2 day of April, 1976. /8/ David A. Schucker Notary Public My Commission Expires November 15, 1977 F. Willis Caruso Marie Sanon 407 So. Dearborn St. Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 341-9345 /8/ Mary P. Powell Mary P. Powell Subscribed to and sworn before me this 2 day of April, 1976. /8/ David A. Schucker Notary Public My Commission Expires November 15, 1977 F, Willis Caruso Marie Sanon 407 So. Dearborn St. Suite 1360 Chicago, Lllinois 60605 341-9345 /s/ Vicki Simmons Vicki Simmons Subscribed to and sworn before me this 2 day of April, 1976. /8/ David A. Schucker Notary Public My Commission Expires November 15, 1977 (Seal) (Seal) (Seal) Answers to First Interrogatories F, Willis Caruso Marie Sanon 407 So. Dearborn St. Suite 1360 Uhicago, Illinois 60605 341-9345 /s/ Edward B, Powell J Edward B. Powell Subscribed to and sworn before me this 2 day of April, 1976. /s/ David A. Schucker Notary Public My Commission Expires November 15, 1977 F, Willis Caruso Marie Sanon 407 So. Dearborn St. Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 341-9345 /s/ Joyce Perry Joyce Perry Subscribed to and sworn before me this 2 day of April, 1976. /s/ David A. Schucker Notary Public (Seal) My Commission Expires November 15, 1977 F. Willis Caruso Marie Sanon 407 So. Dearborn St. Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 341-9345 40 Exhibits attached to Interrogatories AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Rachael Davis, being duly sworn on oath and deposes and states that she gave the foregoing Answers to Defen- dants’ First Set of Interrogatories to a messenger sent by Johnathan T. Howe, Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza, Chi- cago, Illinois 60611, here at 407 So. Dearborn Street, Chi- cago, Illinois, at or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. on the 2nd day of April, 1976. /s/ Rachael Davis Rachael Davis Subscribed to and sworn before me this 2 day of April, 1976. /8/ David A. Schucker Notary Public (seal) My Commission Expires November 15, 1977 EXHIBIT 4 SALES AUDIT REPORT FORM Auditor’s Race: Cau. Auditor’s Name: Edward B. Powell Auditor’s Address: 111 30th, Bellwood Auditor’s Phone Number: 544-7691 — (457-6682—work) Real Estate Firm’s Name: Gladstone Phone Number: 544-6800 Real Estate Firm’s Address: 5331 St. Charles, Berkeley Date and Time of Inquiry: 12:30, 9/16/75 Real Estate Agent’s Name: Donald Wagner Addresses and Listing Prices of Properties Offered for Sale: Address Price SPSS SESS OSE ETE EHSSEOSOSSEESSSS ESSE SEEDS SSSSSSSSS SOS SESS SSS eSeeeeeS 41 Exhibits attached to Interrogatories Addresses and Listing Prices of Properties Seen: Address Price 1. 405 Fredrick, Bellwood $38,500 2. 324 St. Paul, Bellwood $38,900 3. 414 Marshall, Bellwood $41,500 4. 3716 Butterfield, Bellwood $40,900 Information Given to the Agent by the Auditor: Name: Edward Powell Phone Number: 885-2113 Address: Hoffman Estates Family Size: 2 small children Income: Not asked Downpayment : $10,000 Present Home Sold Or Up For Sale? rent duplex Credit Information (if any): not asked State Exactly What You Asked For When You Entered The Real Estate Office: 3 bedroom brick in either Westchester, Broadview, Bell- wood, Berkley, Hillside. We asked for high 30’s low 40's. State In A Narrative Form Your Conversation With the Real Estate Agent: . Salesman gave us listing book to look at and said he will show us any home we wanted to see. When we picked a home on Zulke Drive out he said he could show us better homes of the same type if we were interested. He said if we did not see anything in the book he would take us to the homes he thought were the best for the money. No comments were made about race. No homes picked to see by salesman were near Zulke Drive or in the section east of Mannheim and South of Madison even tho many houses in that area were in the book. 43 42 Exhibits to Answers to Interrogatories Exhibits to Answers to Interrogatories D ia . LETS EETEE: Sinn SR . tena f ar nee waen| senate 3724 St. Peul Avenue eel 9 125 - —_ Revahmee Pee 3902221 ewrete bet we on | OOP del wood Crm we rr waar, Cos F = om. te comme = Brich/Ceders 3 8 4 a ‘ ~ tne amp to a Si-Levat F vaness 74 |OF86. asemr. | eaeares notice, , . $716 ‘s 22. Gladstone, Realtors oor Upility y Foon > a0 omp service ° S001 St. Charts Hd. / Berctey. Minmm mite) / Senannn ver Living rm, dining ra, 3 bedroom, fom! ty Tm, ki cehan t% beck . 7 i 3 j ~e 0 Cateee ete eatirte etenen a_i . , tine ee ae | ce *. . bo . .. * : i. researnem 90 deys ‘cher closing oo rom tava Relocating 120-86 — aa cee semaess = HeKInley = St. Simeon = “omg vent me —— remem 3716 Butterfield Rood eh. 1s7 wwe 120-$-6 j oun Westtown = CTA ———. © eae Be! |wood ° ane. leno. | SaTRe “tar GOS 73 6-4 ? —— 96 = heal Srick #184 3s l\ier yd) mc emens ane ” sot to voll carpeting In living ress, dining =z = om ¢ 2S |? ', S29y) ; * 40,900 ‘, room, hellway & 2 bedrooms . Fenced yard. ©2 sheds; |! gym set; patio. a Lotteg may bo | S76 Ranch ee , pee (SS Gee [eee over > Aluminum $/3; 3 oluminun doors. Space heater Io femily room, * Mirror tn —y coe 196) xem — | $684 ome races = | dining room. Alr canditioner In tomy, room, Femi ly room is paneled. Cott Pees can Fu ~ a a i ~— ry #§] Alt drapes. Be tt: 22 4 ‘es wr = Living room, kitchen with dining ores, 3 bedrooms, beth . 3 a See — } me » } - * i. ve y ” = = . = ; Ow ‘ es : on a rs» * af “ sae a é on Nt.6u 1 c O- — - — eo tiall ; Paerecmom 30 days efter closing J aeagen von‘oe = pa seme eKInley | te - = s fl 57 t+ ---+-- ao oes 7 ° o.a. ‘+ a wonresen, $3,000 Westchester sn, ome" “a : ———— ; _ EE) msvwrens ane ranconas pnosenre, +h “ “. f, Corpeting In living ‘room and 7 peered ‘Combination aluminum storm sash.) 208-36 P Bap ! ‘ All drapes & curtelns:, Gas’ renge % refrigerator. — Patlo ts reer door. citer ae 414 Marshe!! 7 i “£5 "Sno “ram acne oot 208-$56 Window ir conditioner. “No FHA or WA 2." Ue , pnomme mora. pt ees PO Bellwood © ka7rex aT ° te” ve Ps ° od i ve . 2%. ‘ Call firse 207? ne Nebiliny Orick * : 4 ra 3 | — al ¢ *" Od ah ot oe . . for omen. the | en i. Poteson Octdber 15, 1975 he ason roe se. Bought In Callfornia os eenoor: . . . f is _ . ef bs a . " fT Tae tens aie -ccanectall Asked for particulars. Said 3 bedroom brick, preferably 1}} ea " Tarsae—— pe oe ranch, dining room & basement desirable but not necessary. iy ome fit. ea | 3 rane etme Gad Asked if I had dining room set, said no. Asked how old i “ aa ae CE tem tr fee Bought remem AC a home we desired—under 20-25. Priced between $35- {i a EN, 3 Hater, an ars 40,000 w/ 20-25% down. Started showing listing book— ; Hl Gnem ALI Gencminations.ee © tes |) 8 Cr ; ——— —_—_— oe ia or 610 x 9.6 Sy POtE HON y+ or sooncr WEAIONW FOR F4Le = E| senor. McKiniey - St. Simeon en Eg wer West Towns - | block CASS: CURES ete Se] wonteser, Contral Fed, S/L =~) Hi imCKUHOND amo Pewsowa, weaowaare CONTRAL AIR CONDITICNID TITLE Fomm ‘3 Wall to wall carpet in living room et stairs, Curtains, crapes & shades, Se es Bou) DRAPES IN LIVING ROOM PO NOT STAY. Built-in oven & range. BAR IN REC. rf ROOM DOES NOT STAY, Aluminum baked enamel soffits. $/S & $/Ooors. Coll three > Cyclone fenced yard. A QUALITY BUILT HOME VERY WELL MAINTAIN: Hany Extras fo “ v ou Prone: | owner: / ARISPE, Ralph V. & Therese aan Guonm, _ Seeeerte cs er f Peseiuner seeut, CEentuar 21), KAINE REALTY rrome 344-0830 82,08 Faeson: : ~ 451-36 This information) anoeess 1012 Cernan ma oe — SOP 451-56 be comldored wc - __ 40 » 105 5/8 enue te i> — faags Ges ya sore Nein) cowsrm = Brick 1 te. » v Sour o ving ap be a Bi-Level vanes +I" c. aveey. |eamace, 2-COr 50.508 - : ~ eget Oe om sso Sunetse — |8650 | PEAS awe, races West ~— Jemn Recreation room = utility room = } bath noow a 19s. 7 7 Living rm, dining rm, kitchen, 1 bedroow, ceramic tile bath “— tack’ Baie ; mo =? bedroom o H.6n 0) | oe 10.2 « 9.6 -— +e « ———rhlhCcOr or - . -“* . . ee 12.6 a 10.2 5 70%. 8HO0: 90 deoys afte. closing eeeten eae ome eo 13.6 a 10.2 i ecvoos, McKinley = $i. Simeon = Proviso West = EE a. Northwestern eve, Westtowns oun 2 monroseq: avanweona, ————EEE “: mE. Verne Amo PERSONAL PROPERTY. ¢ Central air; hardwood floor; wal! to wall carpeting In living room, dint i: room & hall. Drapes in living room & dining room, Bul. t-in oven/range. | TITS* roe i Aluminum storms & screens. crer ' Seoeme were. be NO FHA ~-- Seller will consider VA Call first » DELLUTRI, Robert J. & Darlene ses, rrons, Slb-302 | ca 5 [eecveeree sooen . erksTey saone SUG=BU0S— Paces Penson ‘ 201-$6 This intemetion! soomess, 338 S$. 32nd Ave. pike’ "ia - amu eooe 201-56 be temidered * . wets bat wo x= | °F Bellwood ee0. [earns waav, Gas FA os fer oven. The evece: Ranch — £o9%: ‘ 34,900 ‘ tie » &. aot, vanes e aaet. | eeacee: 2}-cot aatiee. evans, 9 yrs eros. Carlsen $630 Iites jac. races East oor Full Room sires uy ~~ Living room, kitchen, 3 bedrooms, beth = 18 x 12 ! wo « Wall ° oe Wa tl Bj. e 12 x 10 SF Peseassom, 90 days mearon vor sara Relocating on 10 x 10 ~ | eemoon, Roosevelt a an, evn oan 7% monvesee: AVANLABAE: Es “EE| mecurons ann ransewas eaoeenry Carpeting In living room, drapes In living t room, Awnings. TTL G Fromm 4 NO_FHA or VA Torrens Snowe wera. bad Call ones, GRAZZINI, Frank A., Genevieve 4 544-8218 ce B [ene @neivewe aeant, GOLL REALTY Prone. —e es ae “" $0,008 Pensvom . 4 7 ‘ 48 Exhibits to Answers to nant hin ppceginnt , ’ .) TE"? aTy-3/ Peis blew) gyrate ee 2632 $s. th “! y iy oa ee 6-4 - 5 oe pte are flrowdvicw ut? ne; ‘ lwater ron Gag OA cept oe Hable) comsee Brick Bt | ' cre leosr _j* 45,000 we eng 1 orrae Tri-level tare " " Jevce. ae 7 eanaon, 2-car sotee eer beneed otthowe | 0+ W r $526 os t races whee et a0 YES aoe Tyson — a eee — ~ [over Walt = Recreation rin, Sump pump ue «COND a 15 ~ [eer Living room, dining coor, kitchen, Sen oe 10% 15 P . 3 = 12. ! we 2 bedrooms ' — Ts 3rd =| bedroom ee 12% 9.6 rr peer — on 13.6% 9 5%] corse ones. 60 deys o/e or to be arrangedacsson rus tare: Smaller — 3) senom: tindop- St. fulaile « Proviso East 0.A.12.6 x 25.6 wrce, ave emee On 5 s ee pose wontaset: foes «33 wee utes 200 04 00084, PROP TEATS Wal! to wall carpeting renter a Any “e? tT q*: water & electric. Oraperies, ehadeslensept Viving ream Crepe. ov mOwrse tneTm 32 oven & range. Oryer. Ooudle $/S sink, Modere kitchen & bath, 25 x 10 Ps a8 etent es patio with canopy. Humidifier, Storage space golore, Vard with frult - i; trees. Immaculate hore. A pleasure to shoe! aw ' () us, PHOns. ones | PULCIANI, Tony & Lucille Aes. PRONe __F 13-6428 ce O- . Mh S lQacsunve seawtGLAOSTONE, REALTORS -westchest emons 562-6500 ; eaee Fanrom cn - 382-56 poe Saearien avecete 110 Eastern Avenue ‘3s rs” ui, ante _] 18 been do a2, 900 stimy wep be — taars 1 aqeye, eannem J-cor on wth a 0 $650 vhe r went ovte, ea. ll veces . mr Recrestion room “we oy 7 wr Living room, dining room, kitchen, | bedroom - tha ll j me =62 bedrooms. "= 2210 * 613 wn 10 ” * 613 2 10 . oe h6Ulica 10 H Pesseetien. immediately maaton Pon Baur) Relocating - ocmoe., Lincoln pa iy oun MTGE. AVAKAMm ET: fl Z7 ae VTL rome {EE mewvnens awe ransenas enoranre, Beautifully decorated. Well to wall carpeting ere? f, In Iiving room & dining room & 3 bedrooms. Drepes In Hiving rocm & dining | aces mare, be: room, Aluminum S/S. Awning over patio in back yerd. Sod ¢ evergreens; Coll firse fenced yard; aluminum downspouts © gutters. Central air conditioning & ‘| water softener. ‘ en he ves Ovt. Prone, «, PICAROI, Chories C Phyllis nas, ewowe, §47-9456 cs Oe Hy Gatuvevea seawty OWAYNE KEALTY prone § §62-4300 ' | ee.ee Parson J - é~ : r 445-356 — Inle metlen a0008+s. 2714 - Sestern Caf fue Appron wy. ange TTT eats tet 0 one cite, Bellwood a Tease rn 448-36 » a ates “Eat. - } ~ sph a ned Brick 6 | 3 | Ler |Cent. iy FA 6-4 thetle or be evra. Bi-Level a re -—————— naa — s 41,500 ee. vants SPEC. AtaMT. | Oanace, 2-car ee £ sorts lasérite, semen Half + craw! SL — ter Living rm, Kitchen/Dining 2 bedrooms, both Funtly room, © 194 12 -, thn 15 ae 10 «x 10.6 Relocating y & beautifully Attic hes og t¢ air conditioning Large lot & yard EVERYTHING 547-7346 cs oe lla 14 Fer 21 x 16 ea orn a TITLE Frome crer SHOrlnG mnira, Coll tse ( 54 55 Exhibits to Answers to Interrogatories Exhibits to Answers to Interrogatories Kit-S/ - Lost . Cy? By ten] somes 2632 S$. thi “x 13h = ance coos = 5-3) enareta « | ete Orosdvlew wes ‘oro. loo lee, i fA ”* ese) emsere ete 2S | ver fee Bed agers : tow eae orrare Tri-Level tant oree. atuer. losmane Docar mel ete al PF &, ve $426 pat a . | wages, 8 2 YTS wun, Tyson > . ped are meet, __ | eaces. aver Holi = Reereatton rm, Suap jump —@ or - S ver Living room, dining rug, Litchen, Den ~ $e is Bj eo 2 bedroom « pa 12.6 © rd 1 bedvonm oe Mn 15 ‘es itt) i oe 1249.6 nen As ‘2 © # 2s om = oo aw we ——— + —_——— ee ee ee on 13.6 . s HF rosservon 60 deys a/e or to be arrangedarsscs roe sae Smaller ocmoo. Lindupe St. Cululle - trees fase 0A.12.6 » 25.6 { a! He rue « 10 x 1§ '* i, “ : ; BS Te ats an . x. = a 9 ae) a ee | eT i : ws ie Fe “tt 466-56 - " ; y-2: 8 ae a o (ae Hp db ne yn vier | svosee 1800 Norfolk ‘$0 26 uy, ante ren 486-56 me ewete bet wo cee | ¢!*?: Westchester laws. Teed. Joavee [wear Gas FR 6-4 f sop oe lieblitn) consrm Brick G | 3 1 f ter 7 rs oh eased tae petian og be orrees Georgian Soeah smre. avewr, ear aaw Decor see O08 wither) a nL). i ae | aces ort Full = Poneled reereation room = utility ruom. SSee sege on 16.2 = 12.8 wr Living rogm, dining room, kitchen o 13.5 « 10.3 ; } tv «3 bedrooms & bath = 10.5" 10.9 i oo 12.8% 9.8 . . i = en 16.4 * 10.? bo 52 rorivom 30 days after closing Aeavow ros ance «Smaller hone - Wn 2 - i eCmoe. en “5 ; - ous CTA = Westtowns - 4 biks MICE. AVAIL ROLE: “I 4y “35 wonToseor, pe 74 in CLUNONS 440 PR wtOWAL PROPERTY: betes OCR #5 Wall to wall carpeting In the Iiving room, dining room & stolreese, cr Am oe Aluminum $/5/50. All window caerings. : CALL FIRST . AFTER & PA ° & WEEKENDS ° ars 0) ves Our, Prone: | owwem ZAIAC, Paul ers pmowe 349-2455 ce Oe S [eacausws sews) CENTURY QI-HILLSION REALTY rmone — Suhel 80 . oeLue FERsOm i) Ss4 56 57 Exhibits to Answers to I 7 Exhibits attached to Interrogatories ar an — om ieeemaeaneion 4 ADVANCE AUDITING MATCHUPS ! Baty Inteeossinn) aggme ne yor $. 30th =P On 491-36 nN Jean Lind waa pm ate PO he | lwood [Ras Wea Tearee(awaes OFT FA Se ame Jo indsey ERSTE Rae aoe aE ier months | seices Bi-Level ee ed er ' i. Ee one BBD crecnccecnessesecercsoness Fe me eet. _eaeee Real Estate Firm To Be Visited .........cc0--.ccso--cccsssessseesseseee- > a on Ginna Gade, ee te” a I pis secessetiscnidiies Date Of Visit ................ Time ........ g | 2 bedrivoms . fare Personal Information Auditor Will Give To Real Estate —- = Wee Agent i - gp Aen.) ahaa acme ~ BED eccccsenscnrecavessmsemnsesseneneses Present Address .................000--+-- nee ee EE a ES I 4 coca enoreet™ Woll to wall carpeting. All rooms except Te? Address eve Taxes to'be'pd” eamaer: Qer- +o, ~ ae. eunr Sion, $650 by ouner a races eur, Recreation room noon ae er Living roam, dining room, kitchen, | bedroom — ~ : 4 ! wo = 2 bedrooms. "= 2a 10 * 613} 10 = 1} x 10 S| rossasnom immediately Mtaton rom taars Relocating ~ ha 10 i ocmoe.: Lincoln ‘_ ‘ = aval 4s eum van age: fl 7 monteseq: oe “EE wccveens ane cansowa emoraare Beautifully decorated. Well to wall carpeting ce? XY i, In living room & dining room & 3 bedrooms. Drapes In living room & dining | oo ue worm Sez room. Aluminum $/S. Awning over patio in back yard. Sod & evergreens; Call first : j fenced yerd; aluminum downspouts & gutters. Central air conditioning & water softener. : =— pee 0 ves OV, Prowa: © Loewen, PICARD, Charles & Phy!!!s aes. Prowe: 547-9456 ce O° * Jemeuueve soamt) OWAYNE REALTY Fy) Prone 562-4300 Paces Panton Jie | ; 800-20 ie awawien| aconsen «= 101 St. Charles Road meee 125 _ — coos 4$8-S6 evrete but we aa- | SIT"* Be! lwood aus. |eno. wey | waavices FA | 6-4 sept ve Hebillty | comera, Brick 5 3. Of t-3/ 4 ' . wh |e 43,900 for comme. M0 sone, Relsed Ranch pmo rao wat wltnewt |? * 0. wi be ( alee. , 1968 8.08. Sunrise $680.01) paid +P hee races $ oor, Full = Faneled recreation room = 3/4 both = utility room Room HEED wr = Living em, kitchen and dining area, 3 bedrooms & bath “4 1%» 18 } ano “ ) 10 x 24.6 on #12 « 11,3 | om 12 « 9.6 55] rossasnow 90 days or sooner eeceen 90a be: 4 10 x 9.6 Bcmoo.: McKinley - St. Simeon a “ts oud West Towns - } block wTOE, AVAL ARLE, oon 2% wontesoe, Central Fed. $/L aD 235 Ine. UerONs anO PEMtonan Pmoeaery, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONED TITKe FOmM: Wall to wall carpet In living room & stelrs. Curtains, drapes & shades, creer _ "»| DRAPES IN LIVING ROOM DO NOT STAY. Built-In oven & range. BAR IN REC, ane a rst ROOM DOES NOT STAY, Cyclone fenced yard. A QUALITY BUILT HOME Aluminum baked ename! soffits. VERY WELL MAINTAINED $/S & $/Ooors. Many Extras BEd. Front, ——= = - Sub. Prone: Sh4-8776 ce fone Enciueve scant, CENTURY 21, KAINE REALTY ~* ¢ ovnan, ARISPE, Ralph V. & Theresa Oo» Ta prowess § 9/54-0880 ee ee Ee Or See 2 eens nee 61 Exhibits to Answers to Interrogatories hls temationl anumass, 235 $0, 32nd Avenue [igs p20 a (ee oy wrote lel « «| COt¥ Be! wood ~ —_ ey ee ee ee 6-4 om baby cComste, Brick 4 g “— a vo Bay ° eee. The aS Ss tine oor be wee mg > Level taxes | pes asset, |osmaon 25car }. .. pur 1965 sve, | ($660.26) $250.83 Ko et. races nour, Recreation rm & utility rm & crawl space - Storege & powder roon, nOom wines ver Living room & dining room "L" shaped, kitchen, | bedroom, bath 0 22-91% '6-3 Z oe . ; aso 2 bed noms « 10 x 12 ae , Lo ’ vs oe 10.9% 9.3 LF Poresenon, a/c araton rom sare Relocating on 10.5 x 13 semoon: McKinley = Proviso West = St. Simeon ee 10.2 x 12.9 Hy Lr Northwestern eve Westtown ean th. x 13 75 | “enreses: avaiagce EEE gif sevens sun eaarona, eaoweary Wall to wall carpeting In "L" shaped living #5 room, dining room & stairway. Built-in oven & range. Stainless steel ie. S/S = ownings. Living room mirror does rot stay. TT eT i drowns mere. f Call first OU Prone " | oewan, KOWALSK!, George & Audrey nas, —, 547-9532 c8 SECLuNve scant: GLADSTONE, REALTORS - B Prome 544-6800 eS O4Lc8 Panton 68 30-$-6 {his Lclewetien| aponnen — $935 Haple Avenue “ox l25 sa — £908 30-S-6 twrote but we we~ | STF! Berkeley aur. Jeeo. len ” cfreey, O88 FA r 6-4 Se can tej cemre = «Fase Orrick 8+ Be pte 2% Pe 6 or errors. . oe Lempenmallip d im Oe sting mor be | OT TAM Bi-Level Taxes src. aseur. |eamace, 2-car o.558 withous | & + 0, P Frame outiee. Fever, 1965 rom, _Swiech $820 None moet. races “ omr 23 « 12 (irreg) Carpeted Arc. rm, Kit, & BR & noom wires rm, $6 3/% baths & office or trophy rm ver Living room, dining rm, kitchen & enclosed porch 3 bedrooms & full ceramic bath (doudle vanity) ity|e« 15 SCmoOoL: ; Possesnom $s an =| wontoses, i S| sheds In : In master bedroom, 10-15-75 Longfellow (lower grades) McArthur (Jr HI) Sr. Domitilla, Proviso Wl, > Encl eck yerd. Chaln link fence. doors. (3). All Inside shutters on premises, PEAION FOR SALE evs Westtown avarwceece no : ae level: Paneled recreation rm W/gas fireplace & bar (18 x 14), uttl on Taft x * x x » 2 closets in rec. rm.lee % x * x x x inCKLUHONe ANO HEMDONAL PRorcary, TROOMS Of elther basement or grade rerreation rm level are very sulteble for in-law arrangement, rm, dining rm, hell, stelrways, 2 bedrooms & below grade rec. rm. draperies & supporting fixtures on premises W/the exception of draperies Dishwasher; dispose! in kitchen, Carpeting in living All 2 aluminum storage Aluminum storms € screens & $/S OVS. Prone: Red. Prone SRCLUHVE AGENT: SALES PERSON % | ownae, OOOLITTLE, John & Karen GOLZ REALTY Cas Car-8-Que in yard, 544-0693 Patio. c8 pmowe 345-6030 TITLE roew cTter eM Oto mera. Phone first Key —— 62 Exhibits to Answers to Interrogatories $ kitchen, | bedroom & recreation rm. Svs. Prore oowan, OF SANTIS, Albert J. 6 lone F-_ ave enone, _S¥¥~ 1057 e 5 eucauwws soamr, GULZ REALTY m puowe. 6945-6050 415-7 + gate meg scoeas 2632 S$. Hith af or 134 aa ae a = trate tet wo ee | OT Broadview wes. “ere. | earwe naay cas FA fort me Weblr | comsre, = Brick BY 1 er pecs. Ste * 45,000 ieting may be | OPPSE Tri-Llevel vanes sree. asewr. |oawaee 2-car wetusies came 00 on t $526 oo ye wu yrs o.oo 'ysonr se lncet. paces oor Half = Recreation rm. Sump pump om 5 rer Living room, dining room, kitchen, Den _ 10 « 15 J me 2 bLadroons =» 3a 12.6 - | bedroom o- re x $s o- x 5. i. ressernen, 60 7 b Smell 00 13.609 i Posrernon. - mo . » 145 pilates [‘ Zo “$$ 6 Ee ese= ay w, cone 1,48- Soeiveotmel . — os mpes ory me See me ion ye semen 3008 Se. Ghortes Reed vor ie 135 tv. anea ‘ 158-$6 of ee owe Setineed F if: jor Ch [*: > ba | Geol coam bs coare| ete Bel wood oy en wares FA 6-4 te ans, Thelen em a Ae i te a9 0 badly | eomere: Brick $ | 3 [1-3/6 u __j* 43,990 ot chow a r ” ye pia parti {" Par .i v9 . “ pny Ey sere Ralsed Ranch pease «ify oe" wy 2}-car opive a soot 42,299 | ove Len be’ vm He emed eiteel © P Will be ide Orive s « MA PRP y=30- a 7 nn 0 ae 6 gin eee es thee 1958 . Sunrise $680.01 pold races SU |’ we 9 1/5.09 9-30-74 5.00 5-51-76 j ——— o2..- An MS oo - ——e . : Tesmr, Full = boneled recreation room = 3/4 bath = utility room a i ver $186.09 ey te fo $195.09 Weer Gf th is h ae 16 a 18 en I~ 1-74 $195 c 7-31: i¢ | er Living rm, kitchen and dining ares, 3 bedrooms & bat *) 10 x 26.6 t we $liy.du 317% $5.Cy 76 e . ; * I boos ; 6" +" oe 12a 19 Ee rt oe ee ae H oe Wn or Sli reise ber lecte nerrw fe) oie sang on . od e ‘ 5% rossesvon 90 days oF sooner Measen Fon sae: on — f ang ree SNS «4 ; Pemoon: McKinley - St. Simeon nme, aint on Si) onteses, Bellwood $/t i — moe West Towns ~ | block ore «3! 6 & reftrles TTA roe | § woetesea, Central Fed. $/L _-——— AUTETUL_ ont : 8 CAUIUITS FI ineuunens smo Panton, enosaary, Wal! to wall carpeting throughout. Cerage has | TITst rom H weter & electric. Oreperies, shedes(except |iving roon drapes. Bulit-in créer : oven & range. Oryer. Oouble S/S sink. Modern kitchen & beth. 25 x 10 Gress mere, 43 patio wlth conopy. Humidifiér. Storage spece galore. Yard with fruit Coll first iE trees. immaculate hore. A pleasure to show! 3 Fa ae DD ves svt, Prowse, 5 oonce, PULCIANI, Tony & LucI Ile oan. Guat F13-6428 ce Oe axciunve scant GLADSTONE, SALES Panton, CH REALTORS-Wes eee 12 prone 562-6500 ww? - . ane . ari e : - oo | A Sesptpesatd “Ah ee aetese eae , Se 4 af at Ou Sees eam Ca ce Oe a: fem os ome Oe - ~ ~~ “os = yy é, te 5 ea teal, 2 Sey as r * Pes. a Fa OS ee ee ees ONE > want, ’ 76 = a « @ * - - ert ad ed . - 4 Nee - r r - the bs ~_— e -—-— ore Le utes . = ey eg _ 2 * , } : - "' > 1% Ay =, ¢ =i-} aie +: = . ote “Ge : a * % y>4 Etat gee Piet oak eae : S23) Fate ie : Fors we -~t “ wat & J tw rook | &e bev a -*.4 - 7 vee re i, Ss. Sees le ad MS et Se, me ee — . ¢ a ‘ee : * - - a * Pm) a - a 3 - pe a ee = . e: Ww. _ a a or . =e aie ° = ‘ : ? o e? * *. - e » ; we , : =| YWISS >. ee a . ~ hie Pi - Wey, Pores’ d os ‘ - So mt ee ite ee ee er ae eee ee : ee ee 77 Exhibits to Answers to Interrogatories — ? — me mee le . F vcaeen i ” F Robert J. Casey Sales Maneger Resedence Phone: $62-$183 _ ree © . Gladstone, Realtors {C491 W. Cesmek Moed / Westchester, Minois / $62-4500 78 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Filed July 6, 1976) Defendants move pursuant to Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a summary judgment on the following alternative grounds: (1) Plaintiffs have no actionable claim or stand- ing to sue under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 3612 and 42 U.S.C. § 1982. (2) There is no case or controversy between the parties within the meaning of Article LI1 of the Con- stitution. (3) The ‘‘prudential limitations’’ on the exercise of federal jurisdiction require that plaintiffs not be afforded standing to prosecute this case. In support of this motion defendants rely on certain of plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories and responses to re- quests for admission. (Copies of the pertinent Interroga- tory Answers and Responses to Request for Admission are attached as Exhibit A to this motion.) Russell J. Hoover Russell J. Hoover One of the Attorneys for Defendants JENNER & BLOCK— One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 222-9350 Yh 79 Exhibit A to Motion for Summary Judgment EXHIBIT A The following are those portions of plaintiffs’ Answers to Interrogatories and Response to Request for Admis- sions on which defendants rely to support their motion for summary judgment: Requests For Admissions Al. None of the individual plaintiffs who had conver- sations with the defendants had the intention at the time of said conversations of purchasing a home. Answer: Admit. A2. None of the individual plaintiffs who had conver- sations with the defendants informed the defendants that they were conducting an audit on behalf of the Leadership Council For Metropolitan Open Communities. Answer: Admit. A3. None of the individual plaintiffs has had any con- versation or business contact with defendant Ted Wolnik. Answer: Admit. A4. None of the indivdual plaintiffs has had any con- versation or business contact with defendant Beverly Ric- chiuto. Answer: Admit. Answers to Interrogatories I2. With respect to the allegations contained in para- graph 8 of the Complaint: (a) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of an effort on his part to (influence the choice of prospective homebuyers on the basis of race.) Answer: The acts of Defendants which allegedly vio- late 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. are the subject matter of the audit reports. 1) With respect to Plaintiff Edward Powell, See Ap- pendix A. 80 Exhibit A to Motion for Summary Judgment 2) With respect to Plaintiff Mary P. Powell, See Ap- pendix A. 3) With respect to Plaintiff Charles Elliott, See Ap- pendix A. 4) With respect to Plaintiff Vicki Simmons, See Ap- pendix A. 5) With respect to Plaintiff Joyce Perry, See Appen- dix A. 6) With respect to Plaintiff, Sandra J. Sharp, See Ap- pendix A. (b) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of his discourag- ing prospective black homebuyers from purchasing homes in white areas on the basis of race. Answer: See answer to [2(a). (c) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of his engaging in unlawful racial steering in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and 43 (sic.) U.S. § 3604. Answer: See answer to [2(a). (d) Identify each homebuyer who you contend used or sought to use the services of Gladstone Realtor and whose choice was influenced on the basis of race. Answer: The plaintiff auditors were acting in the ca- pacity of homebuyers. See Appendix A. (e) Identify each homebuyer who used or sought to use the services of Gladstone Realtor who was discouraged from purchasing a home on the basis of race. Answer: See answer to I2(d). I6. With respect to each oral conversation between or among each plaintiff, or anyone purporting to act on his (their) behalf, and each defendant, or anyone purporting to act on his (their) behalf, from January 1, 1975 to the present time: 81 Exhibit A to Motion for Summary Judgment (a) Identify the parties to the conversation. Answer: See Appendix A. (b) State the date of the conversation. Answer: See Appendix A. (c) State the location of the conversation and identify all persons present. Answer: See Appendix A. (d) If the conversation was by phone, state who called whom. Answer: See Appendix A. (e) State what was said by each party to the conver- sation or, if unable to do so, state the substance of what was said by each party to the conversation and indicate that it is the substance rather than the exact words that is being reported. Answer: See narratives in audit reports, Appendix A. The individual plaintiffs have from time to time conversed with each other, however, the substance and dates of those conversations are not specifically available, but are em- bodied in Appendix A. 17. Do plaintiffs contend that each of the defendants discouraged prospective black homebuyers from purchas- ing homes in white areas on the basis of race? Answer: Yes, the individual plaintiffs in this matter were auditors acting in the capacity of homebuyers. (a) If the answer is yes, with respect to each defen- dant identify the black homebuyer and state the date of the discouragement. Answer: See Appendix A. (b) If the answer is no, identify those defendants as to whom you claim such activity and with respect to each identify the black homebuyer and state the date of the discouragement. Answer: Not applicable. 82 Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief PROOF OF MAILING I, Margrett Kontek on oath state that | served a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judg- ment by placing same in the envelope addressed to F. Willis Caruso, Esq., 470 S. Dearborn, Suite 1360, Chicago, Illinois 60605 ATTN. Horace Fox, Esq., with proper, pre- paid postage affixed thereto and by depositing same in the United States Government mail chute at One IBM Plaza, Chicago, Illinois on Tuesday, July 6, 1976 hefore the hour of 5:00 p.m. Margrett Kontek SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of July, 1976. Mary Oskroba Notary Public (Notary Seal) a ao ee ee eens 83 Order and Memorandum Opinion UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISLON (Title Omitted in printing.) ORDER (Filed September 23, 1976.) Memorandum opinion filed. Defendants’ motion for sum- mary judgment is granted and the cause is ordered dis- missed. /s/ Bernard M, Decker Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) MEMORANDUM OPINION (Filed September 23, 1976.) The instant complaint alleges that the defendants, a real estate business and its salespersons and agents, engaged in the illegal practice of racial steering. This consists of efforts to influence the choice of prospective homebuyers on the basis of race by discouraging prospective black homebuyers from purchasing homes in predominantly white areas. The action is based upon Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. $3601 et seq., and upon 42 U.S.C. $1982, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. There are several plaintiffs. The six individual plain- tiffs include four white residents of Bellwood, Illinois, and two blacks, one a resident of Bellwood, the other a resident of Maywood, Illinois. These plaintiffs were in- vestigators who audited the defendant for compliance with 84 Memorandum Opinion the civil rights statutes. In the process of this investiga- tion, several of the plaintiffs' acted as testers, individuals who posed as prospective homebuyers in order to ascertain the practices of the realtor. They assert that they ‘‘have been denied their right to select housing without regard to race and have been deprived of the social and protes- sional benefits of living in an integrated society’’ by means of defendants’ challenged practices. The remaining plain- tiffs are Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Com- munities, a not-for-profit corporation charged with com- batting housing discrimination, and the Village of Bell- wood, a municipal corporation located in Cook County. The Leadership Council asserts that the challenged prac- tices interfere with its work and purpose, and that it has been forced to expend sums ‘‘to provide an audit and other efforts to eliminate such unlawful acts.’’ The Vil- lage of Bellwood complains that it ‘‘has been injured by having the housing market in (Bellwood) wrongfully and illegally manipulated to the economic and social detriment of the citizens of (Bellwood).”’ Federal jurisdiction has been invoked in this ease un- der 42 U.S.C. $3612 and 28 U.S.C. $$1343(4) and 2201. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. The evidence before the court reveals that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action either under the 1866 Civil Rigats Act or under 42 U.S.C. $3612. The plaintiffs have asserted that the acts which constitute the evidence of the alleged racial steering are those described in the audit reports. The instant case therefore does not involve 1 Several of the testers seemingly were not plaintiffs, and the parties’ briefs make it uncertain whether all of the plaintiffs were in fact testers. In any case it is nowhere claimed that any of the plaintiffs were in reality prospective homebuyers. ee 85 Memorandum Opinion racial siceving directed at actual home seekers. As a con- sequence, the plaintiffs can only claim to have suffered indirect injury from the actions of the defendants. The factual circumstances and the legal issues of this case closely resemble the recently decided case of Topic v. Circle Realty, 532 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1976). That action was also based upon 42 U.S.C. $1982 and upon the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by utilizing the jurisdiction provisions of +2 U.S.C. $3612. The plaintiffs included an unincor- porated civil rights organization and three individual mem- bers. Using investigatory tactics similar to those employed by the Leadership Council in the instant case, Topic sent out housing testers to examine the business practices of real estate brokers in Torrence and Carson, California. The plaintiffs found evidence of racial steering; however, none ‘‘were actual homeseekers subjected to racial steer- ing’’, 532 F.2d at 1274. The injuries complained of by the plaintiffs were substantially identical to those found in the instant complaint, with the obvious exception that the muni- cipalities involved did not join in the Topic suit. The district court determined that the $1982 claim should he dismissed,? and on interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Cir- cuit held that the plaintiffs likewise lacked standing to bring an action under $3612 because that section ‘‘does not authorize lawsuits to vindicate the rights of third parties.’’ 532 F.2d at 1275. ? The district court actually noted in a footnote that the plaintiffs could not prosecute a §1982 claim, but omitted the dismissal of that count in its order. The Ninth Circuit treated that as an oversight, and expressly affirmed the dismissal of the §1982 claim. 532 F.2d 1274 fn. 4. Memorandum Opinion The Topic suit, like the present case, asserted a violation of the substantive provisions of 42 U.S.C. $3604,? which guarantees the right not to be discriminated against in the sale or rental of housing. The Ninth Cireuit asserted that a cause of action under $3612 exists only for ‘‘the direct victims” of a practice proscribed by $3604. The plain- tiffs in Topic were held not to be ‘‘direet victims’’. 3 Section 3604 provides: “As made applicable by section 3603 of this title and except as exempted by sections 3603(b) and 3607 of this title, it shall be unlawful— “(a) To refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. “(b) To discriminate against any person in the terms, con- ditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, be- cause of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. “(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination. “(d) To represent to any person because of race, color, re- ligion, sex, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available. “(e) For profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 87 Memorandum Opinion The plaintifis in the present case do not challenge the statutory cousiruction reached by the Ninth Cireuit.‘ Their efforts to iactually distinguish themselves from the Z'opic plaintiffs are halihearted and unpersuasive. The inclusion of the municipality in the instant action does not alter the indirect nature of the grievances since Bellwood is chal- lenging in parens patriae fashion actions to the detriment of its citizens.* The legal complexities in Topic and the instant case arise from the fact that the Fair Housing Act contains two ju- risdictional provisions $3610 and $3612. The former re- quires the performance of certain preliminary procedures before redress may be sought in federal court. These in- clude the filing of a complaint with the Secretary of Hous- ing and Urban Development. The Secretary is given time to investigate and to attempt an administrative resolution of the dispute. He is directed to give local authorities the first opportunity to resolve the controversy in the event * The plaintiffs do cite Bell Realty v. Chicago Commission on Human Relations, 130 Ill.App.2d 1072 (1st Dist. 1971), for the principle that minority testers have a cause of action if they are denied housing opportunities available to whites. However, that case in fact dealt with a license suspension under a Chicago ordinance. The question of standing under the Fair Housing Act was not even remotely at issue in that case, and the testers were in fact not parties to the proceeding. On the other hand, the court notes that indirect victims of steering were seemingly allowed to proceed with an action under §3612 in Zuch v. Hussey, 394 F.Supp. 1028 (E.D.Mich. 1975). The Zuch court however did not consider the standing issue, and the well-reasoned Topic opinion is the only Court of Appeals decision dealing with this question. ®* The court does not reach the challenge raised by defendants to the standing of a municipal corporation under the Fair Housing Act. Memorandum Opinion that equivalent procedures are available under state or lo- cal law. Thirty days are set aside for conciliation efforts, and the action can be brought in federal district court only in the absence of substantially equivalent state law reme- dies. By contrast, §3612 provides immediate access to a federal forum without any such preconditions. The Ninth Circuit carefully analyzed the relationship between these two jurisdictional sections, and determined that Congress intended that the ‘‘preferential access to judicial processes’’ found in §3612 be limited to ‘‘those in- dividuals who are the primary victims of the illegal acts of discrimination.’’ 532 F.2d at 1276. The Supreme Court has expansively defined the class of individuals with suf- ficient standing to bring an action under §3610. Traffi- cante v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 409 U.S. 205 (1972). The Ninth Circuit properly notes that the procedural prereq- uisites of $3610 would become meaningless if both it and $3612 had identical standing requirements. The court con- sidered that the conciliation processes of §3610 were par- ticularly needed and appropriate in situations where there was no direct injury and ‘‘ a delay in plaintiffs’ access to court would not significantly worsen plaintiffs’ injuries, if at all.’’ 532 F.2d at 1276. To hold to the contrary would render meaningless the statutory pattern and create ‘‘a potential excess of litigation’’ by providing immediate ae- cess to federal court for both direct and indirect grievants. The plaintiffs argue that their situation is more analo- gous to that found in Trafficante. But the Supreme Court only found the existence of standing under §3610; this ac- tion is pased upon $3612 and upon a $1982 claim.® 6 The fact that the Supreme Court addressed the question of stand- ing solely in the context of §3610 underscores the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the standing requirements of §3612 may be more restricted. 89 Motion to Reconsider Lrafficunte had originaliy been brought under both 42 U.S.C. §§3610 and 3612 and under 42 U.S.C. §1982. 446 F.2d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 1971). The Ninth Cireuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing under the Fair Hous- ing Act provisions and under $1982. In reversing that de- cision, the Supreme Court expressly did not consider that part of the holding dealing with standing under $1982. 409 U.S. 205 at 208, fu. 8. Thus Trufficante, rather than sup- porting plaintiffs’ claim under the 1866 Act, in fact argues against their contention. And both the district court and the Ninth Circuit seemingly agreed in Z'opic that an in- direct injury was not protected by $1982. Inasmuch as the court concludes that the plaintiffs lack standing to present their claim either under the 1866 Act or under the jurisdictional provisions of §3612, the mo- tion for summary judgment in behalf of the defendants should he and hereby is granted and the cause is dismissed. ENTER: Bernard M. Decker United States District Judge DATED: September 23, 1976. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) MOTION TO RECONSIDER (Filed October 4, 1976.) Now comes Plaintiffs, Village of Bellwood, The Leader- ship Council For Metropolitan Open Communities, Edward Powell, Mary Powell, Charles Elliott, Vicki Simmons, San- dra Sharp and Joyce Perry by their attorneys, F. Willis Caruso, Horace Fox and Marie V. Sanon and respectfully 90 Motion to Reconsider requests this honorable Court to reconsider its Dismissal Order in this action heretofore entered on September 23, 1976. In support of this motion, plaintiffs state as follows: 1. Plaintiffs did and do challenge the Topic decisions’ statuatory construction. However, an alternative theory was also presented, to wit; if the Court felt bound by Topic, the instant case was distinguishable. 2. Plaintiffs disagree with the proposition that the legislative history of 42 U.S.C. §3610 and §3612 delineates a different standing requirement for $3612 than it does for $3610. 3. Notwithstanding the fact that the Court in Zuch v. Hussey, 394 F.Supp. 1028 (E.D. Mich. 1975) did not specifi- cally consider the standing issue in that racial steering case, those plaintiffs were allowed to proceed under 42 U.S.C. $3612. 4. We believe the municipality has standing in its own right or in a representative capacity to maintain this suit. Warth 43 L.W. 4912. /s/ Horace Foa, Jr. One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs Horace Fox, Jr. Marie V. Sanon F. Willis Caruso 407 So. Dearborn St. Suite 1360 Chicago, IL 60605 341-9345 ae ey 4 91 Notice of Appeal UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS KASTERN DIVISION (‘Title omitted in printing.) NOTICE OF APPEAL (Filed October 21, 1976.) Notice is hereby given that Village of Bellwood, et al., Plaintiffs above named, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cireuit from the Mem- orandum Order entered in this action on the 23rd day of September, 1976. /s/ F. Willis Caruso /s/ Horace Fox, Jr. One of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Horace Fox, Jr. F. Willis Caruso Marie V. Sanon 407 South Dearborn Street Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 341-9345 92 Notice of Filing UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) NOTICE OF FILING To: Russ Hoover, Esq. Jenner & Block One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois Please Take Notice that on the 21st day of October, 1976, we filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Llinois the Notice of Appeal, a copy of which is herewith served upon you. /s/ Horace Foa, Jr. One of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Horace Fox, Jr. F. Willis Caruso Marie V. Sanon 407 South Dearborn Street Suite 1360 Chieago, Illinois 351-9345 State of Illinois County of Cook—SS. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Oneida McCullough, hereby states that she served the foregoing Notice of Appeal upon attorney for defendants, Russ Hoover, Jenner & Block, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, by mailing a copy thereof by first class, pre-paid mail to said attorney on this 21st day of October, 1976. /s/ Oneida McCullough Subscribed to and sworn before me this 21st day of October, 1976. Marie Sanon Notary Public A ” M : 93 Order Denying Motion jor Reconsideration UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS HASTERN DIVISION (‘Title omitted in printing.) ORDER (Filed November 5, 1976.) The plaintitfs huve moved for reconsideration of this court's order graniing summary judgment in behalf of the detendants on the grounds that they lack standing to pre- sent their claim under the statutes utilized. The court feels that Topic v. Circle Realty, 532 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1976), is dispositive of this case and cannot be factually distinguished. The inclusion of the municipality as a plain- tiff does not alter the indirect nature of the injury asserted in the complaint. Topic offers a compelling construction of the statuiory pattern, and deals with an issue not pre- viously decided in this cireuit. While the plaintiffs are free to attempt to persuade the Seventh Circuit to dis- agree with the view expressed in Topic, the court finds no basis for altering its previous opinion. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider is hereby denied. /s/ Bernard M. Decker Judge ' | 10-24-75 10-31-75 10-31-75 11-25-75 2-11-76 3- 9-76 4- 2-76 7- 8-76 9-30-76 95 Relevant Docket Entries RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES Filed Complaint and four copies. JS-5 Filed plaintiffs’ interrogatories. Filed plaintiffs’ request for production of docu- ments te be inspected and copied. ws Filed defendants’ motion for leave to file appear- ance, Jury demand, motion to dismiss and affidavit evidencing compliance with Rule 39 Filed defendants’ discovery request (first wave) T Enter order dated March 8, 1976: Order plaintiff to answer defendants interrogatories on or before April 2, 1976 and defendant is given an extension of time until April 20, 1976 to answer or other- wise plead. PERRY, DJ Mailed notices 3/9/76 fd’a Filed plaintiffs’ notice of filing, with answers to defendants’ first set of interrogatories, with ex- hibits attached. fd’a Filed defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Enter order dated September 29, 1976: This cause comes on upon defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court has read and considered said motion and the memoranda of the respective parties in support thereof and in op- position thereto and finds that said motion is well taken and should be granted for the reasons set forth in Judge Decker’s thorough and scholarly memorandum opinion entered September 23, 1976 10-26-76 10-21-76 10-26-76 10-26-76 Relevant Docket Entries in Village of Bellwood etc., et al. v. Gladstone Realtors, et al., case no. 75 C 3587, which opinion this court hereby adopts as its own. The court notes that the complaint in the aforecited case is almost a verbatim duplicate of the complaint in the instant case, except of course for the names of the defendants, and that plaintiffs’ brief in op- position to defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the aforecited case is likewise, almost a verbatim duplicate of their brief in opposition to the instant motion for summary judgment, again except for the names of the defendants. Ac- cordingly, it is Ordered that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be and it hereby is granted, and that summary judgment be and is hereby is entered in favor of each defendant herein and against plaintiffs herein, with costs to be assessed against the plaintiffs.—Perry, J. Mailed notices 9-30-76 JS-6 T Enter order dated October 21, 1976: Enter order —plaintiff’s motion to reconsider dismissal order of September 29, 1976 is hereby denied—., Perry, J. Mailed notices 10-26-76 T Filed plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider T Filed Notice of filing of Notice of appeal. Filed Notice of Appeal by Village of Bellwood, The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, Edward B. Powell, Mary P. Powell, Charles Elliott, Vicki Simmons, Sandra T. Sharp and Joyce Perry, Plaintiffs from order of 9-29-76 $5.00 pd 97 Complaint UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) COMPLAINT (Filed October 24, 1975) Now Come the Plaintiffs, Village of Bellwood, a muniec- ipal corporation of the State of Illinois, The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, a not-for- profit corporation of the State of Illinois, Edward B. Powell, Mary P. Powell, Charles Elliott, Vicki Simmons, Sandra T. Sharp, and Joyce Perry, by their attorneys F. Willis Caruso and David J. Parsons, and complains of De- fendants Robert A, Hintze Realtor, R. J. Tillman, Stephen F. Eggerding G.R.1., Robert A. Hintze, as follows: 1. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. $1982 and 42 U.S.C. $§3601 et seq. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 U.S.C. §1343(4) and §2201, and 42 U.S.C. $3612. 2. Plaintiff, Village of Bellwood, is a municipal corpo- ration of Illinois located in the County of Cook. 3. Plaintiff, The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, is an Mlinois not-for-profit corporation charged with providing for equal opportunity in housing and the elimination of discrimination in housing in the six- county metropolitan area. 4. Plaintiffs, Sandra T, Sharp and Joyce Perry are and were at all times relevant hereto black citizens of the United States of America who reside in Cook County, Illinois. 5. Plaintiffs, Edward B. Powell, Mary P. Powell, Charles Elliott and Vicki Simmons, are and were at all times relevant hereto white citizens of the United States of America who reside in Cook County, Illinois. Complaint 6. Defendant, Robert A. Hintze Realtor, is an Lilinois real estate business with an office at 10150 Roosevelt Road, Westchester, in the County of Cook and the State of Illinois. 7. Defendant, Stephen F. Eggerding, is a licensed real estate broker, State license No.: 75-066793, of Defendant Robert A. Hintze Realtor. 8. Upon information and belief Defendant, R. J. Till- man, is a real estate salesperson and agent for Defendant Robert A. Hintze Realtor. 8a. Defendant, Robert A. Hintze, is a licensed real estate broker, State license No. 75-050740. 9. On or about September 15, 1975 and prior thereto and continuing to the date thereof, Defendants, Robert A. Hintze Realtor, Robert A> Hintze, R. J. Tillman, Stephen F. Eggerding G.R.L, undertook efforts to influence the choice of prospective black homebuyers from purchasing homes in white areas on the basis of race, thereby engaging in unlawful racial steering in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1982 and 41 U.S.C. $3604 in an area described as follows: An area bound on the North by the Northwestern Railroad, on the East by Beltline Railroad, on the South by the Eisenhower Expressway and on the West by Mannheim Road. The homebuyers who were affected are those in the above area; and those who used or sought to use the ser- vices of Defendant, Robert A. Hintze Realtor and may have been so influenced or discouraged based on race. 10. In doing the acts complained of, Defendants acted intentionally and maliciously and were guilty of wilful and wanton disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs. 11. Such acts and practices complained of hamper and interfere with the work and purpose of the Plaintiff, The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities 99 Complaint and cost The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities money to provide an audit and other efforts to eliminate such unlawful acts. 12. Plaintiff, Village of Bellwood, has been injured by having the housing market in such village wrongfully and illegally manipulated to the economic and social detriment of the citizens of such village. 1. The individual Plaintiffs have been denied their right to select housing without regard to race and have been deprived of the social and professional benefits of living in an integrated society. 4. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, or other- wise, for the harm done by Defendants, and Plaintiffs are suffering great and irreparable loss and will continue to suffer great and irreparable loss unless the acts and conduct of Defendants are enjoined. Wherefore Plaintiffs pray: (1) That the Court declare individual plaintiffs cannot be denied the right to inspect, negotiate for purchase of, and/or purchase homes on the basis of race; (2) That the Court issue an injunction permanently re- straining the enjoining Defendants from illegal racial steer- ing, and enjoining Defendants from any efforts to illegally influence the choice of prospective homebuyers from pur- chasing homes in particular areas because of race, and/or from encouraging prospective homebuyers to purchase a home in particular areas based on race: (3) That the Court grant actual damages of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) and Fifty Thou- sand Dollars ($50,000.00) exemplary and/or punitive dam- ages each to the Village of Bellwood and The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities; 100 Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories (4) That the Court grant actual damages and exemp- lary and/or punitive damages of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) each to Edward B. Powell, Mary P. Powell, Charles Elliott, Vicki Simmons, Sandra T. Sharp and Joyce Perry; (5) That the Court grant reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. F. Willis Caruso Attorney for Plaintiffs F. Willis Caruso 407 So. Dearborn St. Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 341-9345 David J. Parson Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson 55 East Monroe 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 346-8000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES (Filed October 31, 1975) Now Come Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, and propound the following interrogatories to be answered under oath by the defendants individually. 101 Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories 1. State your full name. With respect to the cor- porate defendant, state the nature of the business entity, the date founded, all predecessors and successors and as- signs. State the name and authority of the person answer- ing for the corporate defendant. 2. State the names and addresses of all other persons having knowledge or information of the matters and in- cidents described in the Complaint filed in this case. State whether any statements were obtained from any of these persons by you, your agents, or your attorneys, the name and address of each such person, and the date of such statement; if so, attach a copy of each such written state- ment. F. Willis Caruso by 8B. Beeson Attorney for the Plaintiffs F. Willis Caruso 407 So. Dearborn Street Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 341-9345 David J, Parsons Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson 55 E. Monroe, 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 346-8000 102 Request for Production of Documents UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO BE INSPECTED AND COPIED (Filed Oct. 31, 1975) Plaintiffs, by their attorney, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure request Defendant Robert A. Hintze Realtor to produce designated docu- ments as described below at 2:00 p.m. on the 19th day of November, 1975 at the offices of Robert A. Hintze Realtor, 10150 Roosevelt Road, Westchester, Illinois. At which time the Plaintiffs, said attorney, and persons acting on their behalf shall be allowed to inspect and copy documents described as follows: 1. All listings of residential real estate either listed ex- clusively with Robert A. Hintze Realtor or available to said defendant for sale through multiple listing or other- wise from October 1, 1974 through October 25, 1975. 2. All! office documents relating to residential real estate available for sale including, but not limited to, lists, memo- randa, reports, reports of listed properties, sale reports and the like from October 1, 1974 through October 25, 1975. 3. All documents relating to names, addresses and tele- phone numbers of prospects for purchase of residential property, talked to, contacted and/or interviewed by sales personnel of Defendant Corporation, including, but not limited to, prospect cards, notes, memoranda, telephone prospects sheets or cards, call-back lists, reports of show- —— 103 Request for Production of Documents ings, reports of prospects, prospect books and the like from October 1, 1974 through October 25, 1975. 4. All documents showing the addresses of all residen- tial real estate shown and/or offered to the prospects re- vealed by the documents requested in 3 above. 0. All newspaper ads and other advertisements for all properties listed for sale including ads for individual homes as well as display ads from October 1, 1974 through Oc- tober 25, 1975. 6. All records and documents showing contracts en- tered into and sales consummated by the Defendant Cor- poration and its predecessor from October 1, 1974 through October 25, 1975 including, but not limited to all documents showing: a) the address of properties sold; b) address of Defendant Corporation’s office consum- mating said sale; ¢) name or names of salespersons consummating said sale for Defendant Corporation; d) names of salespersons sharing in or paid a com- mission for said sale; e) whether any of the above sales were as a result of referrals from other real estate entities: f) names, addresses and race of the persons purchas- ing said properties; g) the immediate prior address of the persons pur- chasing said properties; and 104 Request for Production of Documents h) names, race and present address of the sellers of said properties. F. Willis Caruso by B. Beeson Attorney for Plaintiffs F. Willis Caruso 407 So. Dearborn Street Suite 1360 Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 341-9345 David J. Parsons Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson 55 E. Monroe 42nd Floor Chicago, [Illinois 60603 (312) 346-8000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Rachael Davis, being duly sworn on oath deposes and states that she mailed the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Inter- rogatories, Plaintiffs’ Request For Production Of Docu- ments To Be Inspected And Copied, as well as Notice of Filing, to Robert A. Hintze,10110 Roosevelt Road, West- chester, Illinois, by depositing true and correct copies of same in the United States mailbox at 407 So. Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60605, this 31st day of October, 1975, at or before the hour of 5:00 p.m. Rachael Davis Rachael Davis Subscribed to and sworn before me this 3lst day of October, 1975. Della Brunson NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission expires Oct. 19, 1979 (Notary Seal) 105 Defendants’ Discovery Request UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS KASTERN DIVISION (Title omitted in printing.) DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY REQUEST (First Wave) (Filed February 11, 1974.) As their first wave discovery request in this case, de- fendants submit the following Interrogatories, Request to Produce and Request to Admit to plaintiffs. INTERROGATORIES Il. With respect to each plaintiff, (a) State his full name and each other name by which he has been known since age 18. (b) State his present home address and each other address at which he has resided since age 18, indi- cating the dates of each such residence. (c) State his home telephone number. (d) State his social security number. (e) Identify his present employer and each other employer since age 18. (f) Identify each officer, director and principal managing agent of plaintiff The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities and with respect to each officer and principal managing agent describe his duties in that capacity. (¢) Identify each official or agent of plaintiff Vil- lage of Bellwood who has authorized the bringing of this suit on its behalf. (h) Identify each official and agent of the Village of Bellwood who has knowledge of the injurv alleged in paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 106 Defendants’ Discovery Request (i) identify each officer and agent of plaintiff The Leadership Council who has knowledge of the money expended by said plaintiff to provide the audit and other efforts referred to in paragraph 10 of the Com- plaint. (j) Identify the officer or agent of plaintiff The Leadership Council who is best able to testify to the types of records maintained and to the record keep- ing and filing procedures of said party. (k) If any of the plaintiffs are members of a Block Club, identify the Block Club and each officer, prin- cipal managing agent and spokesperson therefor. (1) If any of the individual plaintiffs is or has been a party to a lawsuit (other than the instant case) or a defendant in a criminal case, state with respect to each such plaintiff the full caption of the case (in- eluding case number, court and all parties) and give a brief description of the nature of the case. (m) If any of the plaintiffs has ever testified either in deposition or at trial in a suit in which The Leader- ship Council for Metropolitan Open Communities was a party, identify the suit in [2(1) above and state the date of such testimony. 12. With respect to the allegations contained in para- graph 9 of the Complaint: (a) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of an effort on his part to influence the choice of prospec- tive homebuyers on the basis of race. (b) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of his dis- couraging prospective black homebuyers from pur- chasing homes in white areas on the basis of race. 107 Defendants’ Discovery Request (c) Identify each act and/or communication of each defendant which you contend is evidence of his engaging in unlawful racial steering in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and 42 U.S.C. § 3604. (d) Identify each homebuyer who you contend used or sought to use the services of Robert A. Hintze Realtor and whose choice was influenced on the basis of race. (e) Identify each homebuyer who used or sought to use the services of Robert A. Hintze Realtor who was discouraged from purchasing a home on the basis of race. I3. Identify each person whom plaintiffs expect to call as an expert witness at trial and with respect to each: (a) State the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify. (b) State the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify. (c) State a summary of the grounds for each said opinion. (d) State the title of the case, case number, court and date(s) on which said expert has testified (either at trial or in deposition) on behalf of any plaintiff herein or on the same subject matter as his expected testimony herein. I4. With respect to the allegations contained in para- graph 11 of the Complaint: (a) State the amount of money expended by The Leadership Council to provide an audit. (b) Identify the recipients of all said moneys. I5. Do you contend that the Village of Bellwood has expended money as a result of any of defendants’ activi- ties which are complained of in the Complaint herein? 108 Defendants’ Discovery Request (a) If the answer is yes, state the amount of money so expended by the Village of Bellwood. (b) Identify the recipients of all said moneys. I6. With respect to each oral conversation between or among each plaintiff, or anyone purporting to act on his (their) behalf, and each defendant, or anyone purport- ing to act on his (their) behalf, from January 1, 1975 to the present time: (a) Identify the parties to the conversation. (b) State the date of the conversation. (c) State the location of the conversation and identify all persons present. (d) If the conversation was by phone, state who called whom. (e) State what was said by each party to the con- versation or, if unable to do so, state the substance of what was said by each party to the conversation and indicate that it is the substance rather than the exact words that is being reported. 17. Do plaintiffs contend that each of the defendants discouraged prospective black homebuyers from purchas- ing homes in white areas on the basis of race? (a) If the answer is yes, with respect to each de- fendant identify the black homebuyer and state the date of the discouragement. (b) If the answer is no, identify those defendants as to whom you claim such activity and with respect to each identify the black homebuyer and state the date of the discouragement. 18. Have plaintiffs withheld any documents called for in the Request to Produce submitted herewith because of a claim of privilege or work product? If the answer is yes, state with regard to each such document: (a) The date of the document. 109 Defendants’ Discovery Request (b) The nature of the document (e.g. letter, memo- randum, tape recording, etc.). (c) The author of the document. (d) The subject matter of the document. (e) The length of the document. (f{) The addressee of the document. (g) Identify all persons known to plaintiffs to have seen the document or a copy thereof. (h) The nature of the privilege or work product claim. I9. Identify each person not heretofore identified in re- sponse to Interrogatory No. 1 through Interrogatory No. 7, both inclusive, who have knowledge of any fact upon which the Complaint herein is based and with respect to each such person state the substance of the facts as to which he has knowledge. REQUEST TO PRODUCE Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure plaintiffs are requested to produce for inspection and copying by attorneys for defendants the following des- ignated documents. The production is to be made in the law offices of Jenner & Block, 43rd Floor, One IBM Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60611 commencing at 10:00 a.m., March 1, 1976: Rl. Each document which relates or refers to or which is evidence of each act and communication identified by plaintiffs in response to interrogatory [2, including with- out limitation each document to which they used to refresh their recollection in verifying the answer to interrogatory 12. R2. The curriculum vitae for each expert witness named in response to interrogatory I3. R3. Each previous deposition transcript and previous transcript of tria! testimony of each expert witness identi- fied in the answer to interrogatory I3. 110 Defendants’ Discovery Request R4. Each document which refers or relates to or which is evidence of the amount of money and recipients of said money stated in response to interrogatory I4, including without limiiation each document to which plaintiffs re- ferred to which they used to refresh their recollection in verifying the answer to interrogatory I4. R5. Each document which refers or relates to or which is evidence of the amount of money and recipients of said money stated in response to interrogatory 15, including without limitation each document to which plaintiffs re- ferred or which they used to refresh their recollection in verifying the answer to interrogatory 15. R6. Each document which relates or refers to, which is evidence of, or which purports to summarize, either whol- ly or in part, each conversation identified in response to interrogatory 16. R7. Each document which relates or refers to or which is evidence of each fact stated in response to interrogatory I7, including without limitation each document to which plaintiffs referred or which they used to refresh their rec- ollection in verifying the answer to interrogatory I7. R8. Each document which refers or relates to or which is the product of the audit referred to in paragraph 10 of the Complaint. R9. Each document which was produced by or received by plaintiffs, and each of them, from January 1, 1975 to the present time which refers to each and any of the fol- lowing: (a) R. J. Tillman (b) Stephen F. Eggerding (c) Robert A. Hintze (d) Complaints of racial steering by Robert A. Hintze Realtors. . - wwe eee ee eee eee - 111 Defendants’ Discovery Request R10. Each document which contains instructions to the testers to conduct an audit concerning defendants. Rll. Each document which purports to summarize or collate the results of the audit concerning defendants. R12. Each document sent to each defendant by each plaintiff (with the exception of the Village of Bellwood) and each document received by each plaintiff (with the ex- ception of the Village of Bellwood) from each defendant from January 1, 1975 to the present time. R13. Each document which purports to instruct the testers in the procedure to be followed in conducting an audit. R14. Each document which plaintiffs contend consti- tutes evidence of the economic and social detriment suf- fered by the citizens of the Village of Bellwood as a result of defendants’ conduct. R15. Each document which plaintiffs intend to intro- duce in evidence at the trial of this case and each document which plaintiffs intend to use to refresh the recollections of witnesses whom they intend to call in this case. REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure plaintiffs are requested to admit the truth of the following matters: Al. None of the individual plaintiffs [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0927%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.