regarding the lawsuit:
Looks like Butlers are asking for sanctions against plaintiff and plaintiff counsel. docket #196 is 16 pages asking for leave to file motion in excess of 15 pages ("Defendants file this Motion for Leave to respectfully request this Court grant them leave to file a 98-page Motion and Incorporated Memorandum for Sanctions against Plaintiff and Her Attorneys") - This Motion has I think 34 exhibits and all told is over 600 pages. any lawyers out there with access to pacer and time to view and summarize? Here are links to what are publicly available:
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6318197/196/mullen-v-glv-inc/ - main motion
www.courtlistener.com/docket/6318197/196/1/mullen-v-glv-inc/ - exhibit #1
additionally looks like plaintiff is NOT going to find replacement representative - only 6 pages and no public access, so including full docket here:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
LAURA MULLEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
GLV, INC., d/b/a SPORTS
PERFORMANCE VOLLEYBALL CLUB
and GREAT LAKES CENTER, an Illinois
corporation, RICKY BUTLER, an individual,
and CHERYL BUTLER, an individual,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:18-cv-1465
Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly
PLAINTIFF’S STATUS REPORT REGARDING
SUBSTITUTION OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND CONTINUING
COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLASS MEMBERS
Plaintiff Laura Mullen provides the Court with the following Status Report regarding the
Court’s grant of leave to substitute a class representative, (dkt. 183 (“Op.”)), as well as Ms.
D’Ambrose’s continuing threats to and communications with Class Members.
I. Procedural status.
1. Plaintiff does not intend to substitute a class representative and respectfully
requests that the Court enter judgment for purposes of appeal.
2. There are three outstanding motions: Plaintiff’s petition for attorneys’ fees, (dkt.
192), Defendants’ motion to amend/correct the summary judgment order (dkt. 188), and
Defendants’ motion to reconsider the motion for sanctions (dkt. 190).
3. For purposes of Defendants’ motion to amend the summary judgment order,
Plaintiff does not object to correction of the order to reflect that USA Volleyball (the “USAV”),
Case: 1:18-cv-01465 Document #: 195 Filed: 05/07/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:4889
2
in that decision, noted that the three complainants to the USAV were aged sixteen and seventeen
when Rick Butler sexually abused them. (See dkt. 188 at 3.) Plaintiff accordingly does not object
to the substitution of “fifteen” for “sixteen” in the Court’s summary of that decision, (Op. at 2),
but objects to Defendant’s further attempt to re-write the description of the USAV opinion which
is otherwise accurate. Plaintiff also objects to Defendants’ other suggested “amendments” or
“corrections,” which re-hash their arguments about the admissibility of DCFS records that were
already ruled on. (See dkt. 188 at 3–6); see also Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F v. Zemin, No. 02 C
7530, 2003 WL 22290409, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2003) (“Reconsideration is appropriate only
when ‘the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but
of apprehension.’”) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185,
1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). Finally, Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ argument that the Court was not
sufficiently precise in describing the well-documented history of sexual abuse by Rick Butler.
(See dkt. 188 at 7–10.) It is apparent from the opinion that the Court took care in its description
of the existing record on Rick’s history, and how that record is described should not become its
own litigation. If Defendants wanted—more than the record already provides—to get their
version of the events into the case, Plaintiff would have welcomed discovery and litigation of
those issues. Defendants have worked hard to make sure that has not yet happened. Should the
Court want full briefing on the issues presented in the motion to amend/correct before entering
judgment, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter a briefing schedule.
4. Plaintiff is also prepared to brief the other two motions (dkts. 190, 192) as the
Court may require.
3
II. Ms. D’Ambrose’s communications.
5. Plaintiff brought to the Court’s attention, in her petition for attorneys’ fees, that
Ms. D’Ambrose seems to have taken few lessons from the motion for sanctions that was granted
against her and her clients. (See dkt. 192 at 1-2.) In her statement to Law360 after the Court’s
ruling, Ms. D’Ambrose not only continued to claim that her actions were a “mistake,” but
implicitly threatened potential class representatives by pledging to “tak[e] additional action
pursuing justice” for her clients. See Lauraann Wood, “Volleyball Coach Spikes Class Fraud
Claims in Sex Abuse Suit,” Law360 (Mar. 13, 2020, 10:26 PM), available at
www.law360.com/articles/1253293/volleyball-coach-spikes-class-fraud-claims-in-sexabuse-suit.
6. Ms. D’Ambrose doubled down in a public post on her Facebook page. The post
appears on the following page:
Case: 1:18-cv-01465 Document #: 195 Filed: 05/07/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:4891
---facebook post appears here, but is not copying over for some reason---
Case: 1:18-cv-01465 Document #: 195 Filed: 05/07/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4892
7. As a general matter, Ms. D'Ambrose is entitled to her own opinions on her Facebook page. But she is not
entitled to disseminate misleading information to the Class, in any forum, or to threaten those that might step in as class representatives. As Ms. D'Ambrose is aware from her clients’ campaign of opt-outs, this is an unusually tight-knit Class with whom she is directly connected, and her public remarks—even those made on her Facebook page—are
statements to the Class. Indeed, at least one member of the Class “liked” the post. It was shared
thirteen times.
8. Ms. D’Ambrose’s communication is misleading in a number of ways. First, it
suggests that Defendants “won” in the sense that the Court found that Rick did not sexually
abuse teenage girls. That is, of course, not so and worse, could lead class members to believe that
the Court has weighed in on the safety of the club in favor of Defendants. Second, it suggests
that the case is over. But that was not true either: even setting aside the right to appeal, the
Court’s order granted Plaintiff’s counsel leave to locate a new class representative. Ms.
D’Ambrose’s communication implying the case was at an end could easily discourage a
representative from coming forward.
9. Finally, and most concerning, is Ms. D’Ambrose’s implicit threat—again, made at
a time when Plaintiff’s counsel was given leave to locate a new class representative. She darkly
hints that the defense of the case is “nothing compared to what we have planned.” This
dovetailed on her remarks to Law360 that she plans to take “additional action” on behalf of the
Butlers. Immediately after the Court’s ruling, Ms. D’Ambrose has twice gone out of her way to
make threats to those involved in the suit. Even if these comments were not intentionally
designed to discourage new class representatives from coming forward, they would have that
clear effect.
10. Ms. D’Ambrose’s actions here are disturbingly consistent with Defendants’
approach to the allegations against Rick for years: muddying the record and threatening anyone
who might bring it to light. Ms. D’Ambrose must not use her personal connection to the Class
6
members to communicate with them in any respect, particularly not to disseminate misleading
information or threats. If Ms. D’Ambrose continues to communicate with the Class, Plaintiff will
have to again move for sanctions, a gag order, or corrective notice. This would be a needless
expenditure of Plaintiff’s and the Court’s resources when Ms. D’Ambrose should be—at this
point—fully aware of her professional obligations.
Respectfully submitted,
LAURA MULLEN, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals,
Dated: May 7, 2020 By: /s/ J. Eli Wade-Scott
One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys
Jay Edelson
jedelson@edelson.com
Ryan D. Andrews
randrews@edelson.com
Eve-Lynn J. Rapp
erapp@edelson.com
Christopher L. Dore
cdore@edelson.com
Alfred K. Murray II
amurray@edelson.com
J. Eli Wade-Scott
ewadescott@edelson.com
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Tel: 312.589.6370
Fax: 312.589.6378
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class
Case: 1:18-cv-01465 Document #: 195 Filed: 05/07/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:4894