Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 1 of 25 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAMELA HUTUL, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

No.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT NOW COMES the Plaintiff PAMELA HUTUL (Plaintiff), by and through her attorneys, Mudd Law Offices, and complains of the Defendant JOHN DOE (Defendant), upon personal information as to her own activities and upon information and belief as to the activities of others and all other matters, and states as follows: NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is an action for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA),

defamation per se, and tortious interference with prospective business advantage arising from Defendants wrongful conduct in publishing fraudulent reviews of the Plaintiff online in which he defames and disparages her and her professional services. 2. By this action, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and

injunctive relief. PARTIES 3. PAMELA HUTUL is a citizen of the State of Illinois and a resident of Cook

County, Illinois. 4. JOHN DOE is, upon information and belief, a citizen of the State of Wisconsin.

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 2 of 25 PageID #:2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiffs federal statutory

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiffs state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367. 6. Alternatively, the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims based upon the

diversity of the Parties and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois, and the Defendant is a citizen of Wisconsin. 7. There is an actual case or controversy that has arisen between the Plaintiff and

Defendant (Parties) in an amount exceeding $75,000.00. 8. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. Further, the Defendant directed his conduct toward the Plaintiff in this district. 9. The Defendant has engaged in intentional conduct with actual malice that has

harmed the Plaintiff. 10. The Plaintiff has been injured by Defendants conduct and has suffered damages

resulting therefrom. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Background on Parties 11. This action involves the Defendants efforts to harm the Plaintiff and to defame,

discredit, disparage, and damage the Plaintiffs professional and business reputations. 12. 13. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is an attorney who practices family law. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has built a reputation for providing high quality legal

representation to clients in Cook County and neighboring counties.

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 3 of 25 PageID #:3

14. 15.

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has acted as an expert witness. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has appeared in the press as a recognized expert in

magazines and newspapers as well as on CNBC and WGN. 16. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has been a speaker at numerous Continuing Legal

Education (CLE) conferences. 17. 18. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has served as a trained mediator. In representing her family law clients, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has invested

significant time in preventing the disputes from becoming inflamed. 19. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is well recognized in the Chicagoland legal community for

her quality services and legal ability. 20. Defendant John Doe is an unknown individual who, in posting fraudulent reviews

of the Plaintiff on several websites, impersonated a colleague of the Plaintiff, a former colleague of the Plaintiff, and other individuals. Defamatory Statements 21. On February 20, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the

website lawyerratingz.com at the webpage http://www.lawyerratingz.com/ratings/1032208/Lawyer-Pamela-Hutul.html (February 20, 2011 Statements). 22. In posting the February 20, 2011 Statements on lawyerratingz.com, John Doe

falsely stated that the Plaintiff sought to make her clients pay the most possible for a divorce. 23. divorce. 24. On April 24, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the website Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not seek to have her clients pay the most for a

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 4 of 25 PageID #:4

scaminformer.com at the webpage http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/pamela-hutulpamela-hutul-davis-friedman-law-unethical-attorney-c24363.html (April 24, 2011 Statements). 25. In posting the April 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe falsely

impersonated an individual in the legal community. 26. In posting the April 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe falsely

impersonated an individual who purportedly had observed the Plaintiffs practice of law. 27. In posting the April 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe falsely

stated that the Plaintiff was unethical. 28. 29. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not unethical. In posting the April 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe falsely

stated that the Plaintiff would lengthen the litigation proceedings and increase her fees. 30. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally lengthen litigation proceedings for

purposes of increasing her fees. 31. In posting the April 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe falsely

stated that the Plaintiff was not a substantive attorney. 32. 33. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is a recognized expert in the areas of family law. In posting the April 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe falsely

stated that the Plaintiff had been forced out of her prior firm for nepotism. 34. 35. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul was not forced out of her prior firm for nepotism. On April 25, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the website

ripoffreport.com at the webpage http://www.ripoffreport.com/attorneys-legal-services/pamelahutul/pamela-hutul-davis-friedman-l-a3f79.htm (April 25, 2011 Statements). 36. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John Doe used the name Paul.

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 5 of 25 PageID #:5

37.

In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John Doe identified himself as being

from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 38. the legal field. 39. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John Doe impersonated an who has In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John Doe impersonated an individual in

observed Plaintiff Pamela Hutuls practice of law. 40. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John Doe stated that [p]otential clients

of Ms. Hutul should be aware. John Doe made additional statements specifically discouraging potential clients from doing business with Plaintiff Pamela Hutul. 41. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John Doe falsely stated that Plaintiff

Pamela Hutul was unethical. 42. 43. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not unethical. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John Doe falsely stated that Plaintiff

Pamela Hutul will create as much acrimony in a divorce as possible to lengthen the litigation proceedings and increase her fees. 44. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not create as much acrimony in a divorce as possible

to lengthen the litigation proceedings and increase her fees. 45. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John Doe also falsely characterizing

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul as unprofessional and as being only interested in her own fees to the detriment of her clients. John Doe also falsely stated that she engages in unnecessary and ineffective legal tactics. 46. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is professional and is not only interested in her own fees.

She does not engage in unnecessary and ineffective legal tactics.

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 6 of 25 PageID #:6

47.

In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John Doe also falsely stated that

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has a poor reputation in the Chicago legal community as not being a substantive attorney. 48. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not have a poor reputation in the Chicago legal

community. Additionally, she is a recognized expert in family law. 49. In posting the April 25, 2011 Statements, John also stated:

When deciding on an attorney, potential clients should be aware that legal review sites such as avvo.com are regularly monitored by attorneys. The reviews there are adjusted and edited by the attorneys in question and are therefore not necessarily accurate. So gather information about an attorney from multiple sources before making a decision. 50. From this point, John Doe set out to publish false statements about Plaintiff

Pamela Hutul on numoerous websites. 51. On April 30, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the website

scaminformer.com at the webpage http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/pamela-hutulpamela-hutul-davis-friedman-law-firm-family-law-attorney-c22857.html (April 30, 2011 Statements). 52. In posting the April 30, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe falsely

claimed to be a colleague of the Plaintiff employed by the Plaintiffs employer. 53. In posting the April 30, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe

impersonated an individual employed with the Plaintiffs employer. 54. In posting the April 30, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe

affirmed prior statements about the Plaintiff. 55. In posting the April 30, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe falsely

stated that the Plaintiff is dishonest.

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 7 of 25 PageID #:7

56. 57.

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not dishonest. In posting the April 30, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe falsely

stated that the Plaintiff would do anything possible to make a divorce lengthy and expensive. 58. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally cause a divorce proceeding to

unnecessarily continue for purposes of increasing her fees and/or the expense of the litigation. 59. On May 24, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the website

scaminformer.com at the webpage http://www.scaminformer.com/scam-report/pamela-hutulpamela-hutul-stay-away-unethical-money-hungry-mean-c29245.html (May 24, 2011 Statements). 60. In posting the May 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe again

falsely stated the Plaintiff was unethical. 61. 62. Again, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not unethical. In posting the May 24, 2011 Statements on scaminformer.com, John Doe again

falsely stated the Plaintiff seeks to extend litigation so that she can earn more. 63. Again, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally lengthen litigation

proceedings for purposes of increasing her fees. 64. On May 30, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the website

devreviews.com at the webpage http://www.devreviews.com/pam-hutul-l25979 (May 30, 2011 Statements). 65. In posting the May 30, 2011 Statements on devreviews.com, John Doe

impersonated a colleague of the Plaintiff by claiming to have seen her practice of law. 66. In posting the May 30, 2011 Statements on devreviews.com, John Doe falsely

characterized the Plaintiff as a shyster.

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 8 of 25 PageID #:8

67.

The term shyster has a defamatory meaning of acting in a disreputable,

unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, politics or business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shyster (last visited March 11, 2012). 68. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not act in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous

way. She is not disreputable, unethical or unscrupulous. 69. In posting the May 30, 2011 Statements on devreviews.com, John Doe falsely

stated that the Plaintiff will do everything she can to keep the fighting going to increase her fees. 70. Again, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally lengthen litigation

proceedings for purposes of increasing her fees. 71. In posting the May 30, 2011 Statements on devreviews.com, John Doe falsely

stated that the Plaintiffs legal knowledge is sub-par. 72. 73. Plaintiff Pamela Hutuls legal knowledge in family law is not sub-par. In posting the May 30, 2011 Statements on devreviews.com, John Doe falsely

stated that the Plaintiff is poorly respected in the legal community. 74. 75. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not poorly respected in the legal community. In posting the May 30, 2011 Statements on devreviews.com, John Doe instructed

individuals to stay away from the Plaintiff if you want to reach a good outcome. 76. On May 31, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the website

ripoffreport.com at the webpage http://www.ripoffreport.com/lawyers/pam-hutul/pam-hutulshyster-attorney-in-c6da3.htm (May 31, 2011 Statements). 77. In posting the May 31, 2011 Statements on ripoffreports.com, John Doe

essentially repeated the statements made on May 30, 2011 on the website devreviews.com.

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 9 of 25 PageID #:9

78.

On May 31, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the website

yelp.com at the webpage http://www.yelp.com/filtered reviews/pahl39Vdgrds4ReFTbkYpw?fsid=wurTidZZ4 m7xbbtnC 346w (First Yelp Statements). 79. In posting the First Yelp Statements on yelp.com, John Doe impersonated an

individual who used to work with the Plaintiff. 80. In posting the First Yelp Statements on yelp.com, John Doe essentially repeated

the statements made on May 30, 2011 on the website devreviews.com. 81. On May 31, 2011, John Doe posted additional statements about the Plaintiff on

the website yelp.com accessible at the webpage http://www.yelp.com/user_details?userid=AMiClblzw2Aw_IpwAvtTlw (Second Yelp Statements). 82. In posting the Second Yelp Statements on yelp.com, John Doe essentially posted

a shortened version of the statements made on May 30, 2011 on the website devreviews.com. 83. On June 2, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the website

pissedconsumer.com at the webpage http://pam-hutul.pissedconsumer.com/pam-hutul20110602240917.html (June 2, 2011 Statements). 84. In posting the June 2, 2011 Statements on pissedconsumer.com, John Doe used

the pseudonym Danm. 85. In posting the June 2, 2011 Statements on pissedconsumer.com, John Doe

impersonated an individual who had observed the Plaintiffs practice of law. 86. In posting the June 2, 2011 Statements on pissedconsumer.com, John Doe

impersonated an individual in the legal community.

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 10 of 25 PageID #:10

87.

In posting the June 2, 2011 Statements on pissedconsumer.com, John Doe

essentially repeated the same post made on scaminformer.com on April 24, 2011. 88. In posting the June 2, 2011 Statements on pissedconsumer.com, John Doe

expressly warned potential clients of the Plaintiff to beware. 89. In posting the June 2, 2011 Statements on pissedconsumer.com, John Doe again

falsely stated that the Plaintiff engaged in unethical behavior. 90. 91. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has not engaged in unethical behavior. In posting the June 2, 2011 Statements on pissedconsumer.com, John Doe again

stated that the Plaintiff will engage in conduct solely to increase her fees. 92. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul will not engage in conduct in representing her clients and

managing her clients cases solely to increase her fees. 93. On December 27, 2011, John Doe posted statements about the Plaintiff on the

website lawyerratingz.com at the webpage http://www.lawyerratingz.com/ratings/1032208/Lawyer-Pamela-Hutul.html (December 27, 2011 Statements). 94. In posting the December 27, 2011 Statements on lawyerratingz.com, John Doe

again falsely stated that the Plaintiff does anything possible to make the most money from a case. 95. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not do anything possible to personally make the most

money from a case. 96. In posting the December 27, 2011 Statements on lawyerratingz.com, John Doe

again falsely stated that the Plaintiff had been forced out of her prior firm for nepotism. 97. Again, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul was not forced out of her prior firm for nepotism.

10

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 11 of 25 PageID #:11

98.

The foregoing statements made by the Defendant shall hereinafter be collectively

referred to as the False and Defamatory Statements. Public Perception 99. unethical. 100. 101. The Plaintiff is not unethical. The False and Defamatory Statements convey that the Plaintiff would unfairly bill The False and Defamatory Statements convey the meaning that Plaintiff is

her clients for her own financial gain. 102. 103. The Plaintiff would not unfairly bill her clients for her own financial gain. The False and Defamatory Statements convey that the Plaintiff is dishonest in the

practice of law. 104. 105. The Plaintiff is not dishonest in the practice of law. The False and Defamatory Statements convey that the Plaintiff is unable to

responsibly carry out her fiduciary duties and obligations to her clients, the courts, her colleagues, and the community. 106. The Plaintiff is able to responsibly carry out her fiduciary duties and obligations

to her clients, the courts, her colleagues, and the community. 107. The False and Defamatory Statements convey that the Plaintiff is subpar and

poorly respected in the legal community. 108. community. 109. Since the publication of the False and Defamatory Statements, any individual The Plaintiff is not a subpar attorney and is not poorly respected in the legal

reading the reviews might believe that the Plaintiff lacks the integrity or ability to perform in the

11

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 12 of 25 PageID #:12

discharge of her duties in her employment. 110. Since the publication of the False and Defamatory Statements, any individual

reading the reviews might believe that the Plaintiff lacks ability in her trade, profession, and business. 111. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul remains concerned that individuals and organizations,

including prospective clients, will choose not to utilize her services based upon the False and Defamatory Statements. Intent and Actual Malice 112. Defendant John Doe acted with intent and actual malice because he intended to

harm the Plaintiff. 113. Defendant acted with the intent to tortiously interfere with the Plaintiffs business

interests by dissuading prospective parties, who read the reviews, from becoming Plaintiffs clients.

12

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 13 of 25 PageID #:13

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT ONE AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. 1030) 114. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 113

above in this First Count as though fully set forth herein. 115. In making the False and Defamatory Statements, the Defendant impersonated

individuals in the legal profession who had worked with and/or witnessed Plaintiff Pamela Hutuls practice of law. 116. By impersonating an individual, the Defendant provided false information in

creating accounts at the various websites on which he posted content. 117. 118. By impersonating an individual, the Defendant posted fraudulent reviews. The provision of false information and fraudulent reviews breaches the terms of

use for the websites on which he posted content. 119. By breaching the terms of use for the websites on which he posted content, the

Defendant obtained authorized access or exceeded his authorized access to the computers of the websites on which he posted content. 120. Defendant John Doe knowingly and with an intent to commit fraud obtained

unauthorized access or exceeded his authorized access to the computer(s), server(s) and/or other computing devices of the various websites on which he impersonated individuals and posted fraudulent reviews for purposes of furthering his fraud upon Plaintiff. 121. The Defendant intended to commit fraud against Plaintiff by representing himself

as a former client and/or colleague of the Plaintiff.

13

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 14 of 25 PageID #:14

122. 123. 1030(a)(4). 124.

Defendant intended to harm the Plaintiff personally. Defendants conduct violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C.

The Plaintiff has suffered loss aggregating in more than $5,000 including, but not

limited to, costs of responding to the violations in the form of attorneys fees. 125. A. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul prays as follows: That the Court award her economic damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1030(g) against Defendant; B. That the Court provide her injunctive relief in the form of an order: i. permanently enjoining the Defendant from impersonating himself as a colleague and/or former client of the Plaintiff; and, ii. C. permanently enjoining the Defendant from impersonating the Plaintiff; and,

That the Court award such other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled or as justice may require. COUNT TWO AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION DEFAMATION PER SE OF PLAINTIFF

126.

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 113

above in this Second Count as though fully set forth herein. 127. 128. 129. 130. The Defendant falsely stated that Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is unethical. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not unethical. The Defendant falsely stated that Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is unethical. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not dishonest.

14

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 15 of 25 PageID #:15

131.

The Defendant falsely stated that the Plaintiff had been forced out of her prior

firm for nepotism. 132. 133. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul was not forced out of her prior firm for nepotism. The Defendant falsely stated that the Plaintiff intentionally lengthens litigation

proceedings for purposes of increasing her fees. 134. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul does not intentionally lengthen litigation proceedings for

purposes of increasing her fees. 135. 136. The Defendant falsely characterized the Plaintiff as a shyster. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not a shyster and does not act in a disreputable,

unethical, or unscrupulous way. She is not disreputable, unethical or unscrupulous. 137. 138. 139. community. 140. 141. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul is not poorly respected in the legal community. The Defendant published the False and Defamatory Statements concerning The Defendant falsely characterized Plaintiffs legal knowledge as sub-par. Plaintiff Pamela Hutuls legal knowledge in family law is not sub-par. The Defendant falsely stated that the Plaintiff is poorly respected in the legal

Plaintiff to third parties. 142. The Defendant caused the False and Defamatory Statements to be made on and

through the Internet. 143. 144. The False and Defamatory Statements identified Plaintiff by name. Persons other than Plaintiff and the Defendant would have and actually have

reasonably understood that the False and Defamatory Statements related to and were about the Plaintiff.

15

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 16 of 25 PageID #:16

145.

The False and Defamatory Statements convey that Plaintiff exercises poor

judgment as an attorney and is unable to responsibly carry out her fiduciary duties and obligations to her clients, the courts, her colleagues, and the community. 146. The False and Defamatory Statements impute a lack of integrity and an inability

to perform the duties of Plaintiff in her office and employment as an attorney providing legal representation to the community. 147. The False and Defamatory Statements prejudice Plaintiff and impute a lack of

ability in her profession and business as an attorney providing legal representation to the community. 148. 149. Defendant John Doe presented the False and Defamatory Statements as fact. The False and Defamatory Statements constituted unprivileged publication of the

defamatory statements by Defendant to third parties. 150. The Defendant made the False and Defamatory Statements with actual malice

knowing the falsity of the statements. 151. The False and Defamatory Statements constitute defamation per se because they

falsely impute a lack of integrity and an inability to perform the duties of the Plaintiff in her employment as an attorney, and prejudice the Plaintiff and impute a lack of ability in her profession and business as an attorney. 152. As a result of the Defendants conduct and the publication of the False and

Defamatory Statements, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, loss of business and harmed reputation. 153. WHEREFORE Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks recovery of compensatory and

punitive damages arising from Defendants per se defamation of her.

16

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 17 of 25 PageID #:17

COUNT THREE AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION TRADE DISPARAGEMENT OF PLAINTIFF ILLINOIS UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 815 ILCS 510/2 154. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 113

and 127 through 152 above in this Third Count as though fully set forth herein. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. The False and Defamatory Statements are untrue. The False and Defamatory Statements constitute a false representation of fact. The False and Defamatory Statements disparage Plaintiffs business and services. The Defendant presented the False and Defamatory Statements as fact. The Defendant made the False and Defamatory Statements with actual malice,

knowing the falsity of the statements. 160. 161. The Defendant wilfully made the False and Defamatory Statements. As a result of the Defendants conduct and the publication of the False and

Defamatory Statements, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, loss of business and harmed reputation. 162. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order compelling

Defendant John Doe to remove the False and Defamatory Statements from the Internet. 163. WHEREFORE Plaintiff seeks recovery of compensatory and punitive damages

arising from Defendants disparagement of her business and services.

17

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 18 of 25 PageID #:18

164.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks, upon a finding that Defendant John

Doe acted wilfully, recovery of attorneys fees and costs arising from Defendants disparagement of her business and services. COUNT FOUR AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFFS PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE 165. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through

113, 115 through 124, 127 through 152, and 155 through 161 above in this Fourth Count as though fully set forth herein. 166. The Plaintiff held a reasonable expectancy of entering into valid business

relationships with consumers who would find her through the Internet. 167. The Defendant expressly directed consumers away from the Plaintiff through

statements made about the Plaintiff in reviews posted on websites targeted toward consumers. 168. Consequently, the Defendant had knowledge of the Plaintiffs expectancy of

entering into valid business relationships with consumers who would find them through the Internet. 169. 170. 171. The False and Defamatory Statements identify Plaintiff by name. The Defendant presented the False and Defamatory Statements as fact. The Defendant made the False and Defamatory Statements with the reasonable

expectation that prospective clients who read the review would not choose the Plaintiffs services. 172. The Defendant knowingly made the False and Defamatory Statements because he

18

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 19 of 25 PageID #:19

expected the fraudulent reviews to prevent the Plaintiff from securing new clients. 173. The Defendant acted with the intent to tortiously interfere with the Plaintiffs

business interests by dissuading prospective parties, who read the fraudulent reviews, from becoming Plaintiffs clients. 174. The publication of the False and Defamatory Statements constitutes an intentional

and unjustifiable interference with prospective clients of the Plaintiff that would find her through the Internet. 175. The publication of the False and Defamatory Statements caused prospective

consumers to refrain from contacting and/or doing business with the Plaintiff. 176. As a result of the Defendants conduct and the publication of the False and

Defamatory Statement, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, loss of prospective business. 177. WHEREFORE Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks recovery of compensatory and

punitive damages arising from Defendants tortious interference with her prospective economic advantage. COUNT FIVE AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE LIGHT 178. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 113

and 127 through 152 above in this Fifth Count as though fully set forth herein. 179. 180. The Defendant published the False and Defamatory Statements on the Internet. The False and Defamatory Statements identify Plaintiff Pamela Hutul by name.

19

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 20 of 25 PageID #:20

181.

The False and Defamatory Statements cast Plaintiff Pamela Hutul in a false light

by falsely portraying her as unethical and dishonest. 182. The False and Defamatory Statements cast Plaintiff Pamela Hutul in a false light

by falsely portraying her unnecessarily extending litigation and increasing fees for her own personal benefit. 183. The False and Defamatory Statements cast Plaintiff Pamela Hutul in a false light

by falsely portraying as being unable to responsibly carry out her fiduciary duties and obligations to her clients, the courts, her colleagues, and the community. 184. The False and Defamatory Statements cast Plaintiff Pamela Hutul in a false light

by falsely portraying as sub-par. 185. The False and Defamatory Statements cast Plaintiff Pamela Hutul in a false light

by falsely portraying her as being disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous in the practice of law. 186. The False and Defamatory Statements cast Plaintiff Pamela Hutul in a false light

by falsely portraying her as lacking the integrity or ability to perform in the discharge of her duties in her employment. 187. The False and Defamatory Statements cast Plaintiff Pamela Hutul in a false light

by falsely portraying her as lacking ability in her trade, profession, and business. 188. The Defendant made the False and Defamatory Statements with actual malice,

knowing the falsity of the statements. 189. As a result of the Defendants conduct and the publication of the False and

Defamatory Statements, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not limited to, loss of business and harmed reputation.

20

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 21 of 25 PageID #:21

190.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks recovery of compensatory and

punitive damages arising from Defendants portrayal of her in a false light. COUNT SIX AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 191. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 190

in this Sixth Count as though fully set forth herein. 192. Upon information and belief, the Defendant is not and has never been a client or

colleague of Plaintiff Pamela Hutul. 193. Upon information and belief, the Defendant impersonated or pretended to be a

client or colleague of Plaintiff Pamela Hutul to make the False and Defamatory Statements and engage in the Wrongful Conduct. 194. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul possesses a clearly ascertainable right to be free from an

individual impersonating or pretending to be one of her clients or colleagues and thereby engaging in conduct maligning her professional and business reputation and interfering with her law practice and profession. 195. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if

this Court does not enjoin Defendant because her office, profession, business, and livelihood will be disrupted if the Defendant continues to engage in the Wrongful Conduct. 196. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive

relief. In contrast, the Defendant will suffer no harm because he has no legal right to engage in deceptive and unlawful practices.

21

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 22 of 25 PageID #:22

197.

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul can clearly demonstrate some likelihood of success on the

merits of her claims. 198. Mere compensation at law can only possibly provide Plaintiff Pamela Hutul with

compensation for injuries up to the present. 199. It remains difficult if not impossible to calculate the damages arising from the

Defendants Wrongful Conduct. 200. 201. 202. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul therefore has an inadequate remedy at law. The public interest will not be harmed if an injunction is granted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul seeks a temporary and permanent

injunction enjoining Defendant from impersonating or pretending to be a client or colleague of her; interfering with her law practice; and maligning her professional and business reputations. GENERAL 203. Where conditions precedent are alleged, Plaintiff Pamela Hutul avers that all

conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred. 204. Plaintiff Pamela Hutul demands a jury trial.

22

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 23 of 25 PageID #:23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL accordingly and respectfully prays for judgment against DEFENDANT JOHN DOE as follows: 1. That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded compensatory damages in an

amount to be determined at trial; 2. That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded punitive damages in an amount

to be determined at trial; 3. 4. and, 5. That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded any such other and further That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded attorneys fees and costs; That PLAINTIFF PAMELA HUTUL be awarded the injunctive relief sought;

relief as this Court may deem just and proper or to which she may be entitled as a matter of law or equity.

23

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 24 of 25 PageID #:24

Dated: Chicago, Illinois March 12, 2012

PLAINTIFF, PAMELA HUTIL s/Charles Lee Mudd Jr. By: Her Attorneys Charles Lee Mudd Jr. Mudd Law Offices 3114 West Irving Park Road Suite 1W Chicago, Illinois 60618 (773) 588-5410 Phone Illinois ARDC: 6257957 cmudd@muddlawoffices.com Mark A. Petrolis Mudd Law Offices 3114 West Irving Park Road Chicago, Illinois 60618 Suite 1W (773) 588-5410 Phone (773) 588-5440 Fax Illinois ARDC: 6300549 mpetrolis@muddlawoffices.com

24

Case: 1:12-cv-01811 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/12/12 Page 25 of 25 PageID #:25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PAMELA HUTUL, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

No.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Pamela Hutul demands trial by jury. s/Charles Lee Mudd Jr. Charles Lee Mudd, Jr.