state of illinois illinois commerce commission...roger shekar -vs- commonwealth edison company...

1

STATE OF ILLINOIS

ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION

Roger Shekar , )

Petitioner, )

v. )

) 19-0863

Common Wealth Edison, )

)

Respondent. ) ____________________________________________________________________________________

PETITIONER FILING OF EXCEPTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 200.830 and

MOTION TO VACATE THE EXPARTE “ PROPOSED ORDER ”

_____________________________________________________________________________

Petitioner file this Exception pursuant to Commission Rules of Practice 83.ILL. Adm.Code

200.830 and Motion to Vacate the exparte order of June 18, 2020 which dismissed the

complaint without prejudice. In support thereof, Petitioner state as follows:

1. On April 29, 2020 , petitioner received an E mail from his then counsel Ed Hull attaching

the notice of cancelation of hearing attached as Exhibit A.

2. Contrary to what it says in the June 18, 2020 order , petitioner was not aware of any

“conversion of the in-person hearing into teleconference hearing”, neither Ed Hull who was

to appear in person on April 29, 2020, stated anything as to telesonic hearing when

petitioner specifically asked Hull was there any “Zoom conference or remote hearing since

in person hearing was canceled. This combined with the April 29th , 2020 Notice (Exhibit A)

with no future date set stated, made the petitioner believe that he would be notified of a

later date.

3. Petitioner E mail address was changed since April and the e-docket portal has no tool to

update E mail address. Petitioner did not receive any notice in the mail other than the order

2

of June 18th order, which was received on June 29th . Petitioner was not aware of June 11th

hearing , no notice received, neither his counsel Hull notified .

4. The June 18th order states the purported notice continuing to June 11 was returned from post

office. The reason it was returned as it shows in the image of the envelope in e-docket , the

clerk did not type the address properly on the envelope instead of the address shown on the

papers filed with Commission .

5. Every filing, including Motion for summary judgment ; Emergency motion referred in the

order clearly, vividly shows the Petitioner address as below: 1

Roger Shekar, P.E; M.B.A; LL.B

President & CEO

ARCAD Electronics Inc.

950 Plum Grove

P.O,Box 681085

Schaumburg, Il 60168-1085

6. Since petitioner was represented by a counsel, he did not check the e-docket in April, May,

June time frame.

7. It is noticeably clear from the June 18 order that defendant ComEd deliberately withheld

information as to any June 11 hearing to Petitioner counsel Hull, in spite of being aware of

the fact that Hull sent a letter to ComEd Counsel that he was retained by the Petitioner. See

Exhibit B . This was a deliberately intended deceptive tactic by defendant ComEd to appear

exparte on June 11in order to obtain a sneaky backhand dismissal , with no written notion filed

or noticed.

8. As stated , Petitioner was unable to update his E mail address in e-docket as there is no

___________________________________ 1 Besides the Commission and clerk also aware of the alternate address- the property address where

damages were caused by defendant ComEd , which is the subject of this complaint. The initial complaint

filed with Commission has this address as well though not preferred for case communications

3

provision or tool to update information in the ICC e-filing portal except to change password.

9. Due to COIVID pandemic , Petitioner was unable to contact anyone in Springfield to get his

E mail updated and the number for the clerk played a message “that due to Covid Pandemic

and per Governor’s directive , no one is present in office to answer the call” and asks to

leave a message. But no messages returned by the clerk . The E mail sent to e-Docket Help

Desk never responded .

10. After tireless efforts and multiple settlement letters sent to defendant ComEd since February

19, ( as the June 18th order noted) , Petitioner sued ComEd and several others on April 16,

2020 attached as Exhibit C . Due to COVID pandemic the Case management Conference

continued on this case to November 17, 2020

11. Since then, Petitioner has fired his counsel in for multiple reasons which included , but not

limited to:

• when Petitioner discovered Edwin John Hull did not file an appearance in this case

contrary to what Hull lied to Petitioner to have filed an appearance on February 19,2020;

• Edwin John Hull was suspended for a period of time by the Supreme court of Illinois ,

for attempted theft by conversion of $ 48000 of monies from a client escrow account

which the client Leslie Grant obtained as part of a settlement from a personal injury case

and the funds belonged to a client Leslie Grant;

• Edwin John Hull had committed many multiple malpractice acts, violations of Rule of

Professional Conduct prescribed by the Supreme court of Illinois and ARDC, required

for attorneys to be in good standing with the bar

12. Petitioner is filing this motion to vacate in spite of the fact, petitioner sued ComEd , as one

last ditch effort for an “unconditional , no pre-condition” to settle the matter before

Petitioner retain a new counsel to appear in the pending Law suit in Kane county, at which

4

time Plaintiff (Petitioner) will prosecute the law suit vigorously through Jury Trial . ( Any

settlement even if happens it would be only as to ComEd defendant ).

13. As stated in summary judgment motion filed by the Plaintiff , defendant acknowledged and

aware that they caused extensive damages to the petitioner’s property. Exhibit D Summary

Judgment Motion .

14. The damages are not limited just to landscape damages as to which this Commission has

evidence of over 75 pictures. The damages are much more than just landscape repair and

goes beyond . Such damages including punitive damages for many willful, malicious and

vicious acts , including defamation , stalking , threats to endanger petitioner’s life, using

other defendants named in the law suit; depreciated value of the property; tortious

interference in petitioner’s efforts to sell his home last Summer 2019, caused irreparable

damages, just to name a few which are damages claimed in the law suit .

15. The Commission already made it clear in a hearing in September 2019 , it could not hear

punitive damages and other damages. However any settlement if at all happens in line with

paragraph 10 language above, will be a global compensation as to all the damages caused by

ComEd and will be only as to ComEd. The case will proceed as to rest of the defendants if

any settlement releases ComEd .

WHEREFORE, for reasons stated in this motion, request this Commission to vacate the

Order of June 18, 2020 .

Respectfully submitted,

July 2, 2020 By: /s/ Roger Shekar `

Petitioner


President & CEO


950 Plum Grove; P.O,Box 681085


5

STATE OF ILLINOIS


Roger Shekar , )

Petitioner, )

v. )

) 19-0863


)

Respondent. )

__________________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: Veronica Gomez , Corporate Counsel for ComEd [email protected];

Mark Goldstein, 300 Anthony Ave; apartment no: 313 , Mundelein , Il 60060

Take notice that on July 2,2020 , I filed with the Illinois Commerce commission ,

“ PETITIONER FILING OF EXCEPTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 200.830 and

MOTION TO VACATE THE EXPARTE “ PROPOSED ORDER ” ,

copy of which is attached and served upon you.

By: /s/ Roger Shekar

Petitioner

Courtesy copies sent to: Mr. Gannon P. Dolan, Administrative Law Judge ,ICC

Carrie Zalewski, Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission Illinois

mailto:[email protected]

Exhibit A

From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:50 AM To: 'Justice Clinic Ltd.' Subject: RE: ICC--hearing cancelled No ICC hearing today—see cancellation notice attached. Ed Hull

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

4/29/2020 ICC: Event Detail

https://www.icc.illinois.gov/meetings/detail.aspx?t=2&id=124845 1/2

View up to date information on how Illinois is handling the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) from theIllinois Department of Public Health (http://www.dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/diseases-and-conditions/diseases-a-z-list/coronavirus)

View up to date information on how the Illinois Commerce Commission (/home/covid-19) is handling theCoronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

×

Event Detail

Tags:

Illinois Commerce CommissionHearing for 19-0863 (/docket/casedetails.aspx?no=P2019-0863)April 29, 2020 11:00 AMCancelledRoger Shekar -vs- Commonwealth Edison Company Complaint as to property damages in Streamwood, Illinois.

Administrative Law Judge Dolan

Illinois Commerce Commission Hearing 19-0863

Illinois Commerce Commission160 North LaSalle StreetState of Illinois BuildingEighth FloorChicago, IL 60601

(https://www.google.com/maps/place/160+North+LaSalle+Street,Chicago,IL+60601)

Quick Links

http://www.dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/diseases-and-conditions/diseases-a-z-list/coronavirushttps://www.icc.illinois.gov/home/covid-19https://www.icc.illinois.gov/docket/casedetails.aspx?no=P2019-0863https://www.google.com/maps/place/160+North+LaSalle+Street,Chicago,IL+60601

4/29/2020 ICC: Event Detail

https://www.icc.illinois.gov/meetings/detail.aspx?t=2&id=124845 2/2

A to Z Topic List (/sitemap.aspx)Privacy (/privacy.htm)RSS Feeds (/rss/)Contact Us (/about/contact-us)Freedom of Information Act (/about/FOIA)

Event Calendar (/meetings/) ICC Legal Authority and Administrative Rules (/icc-authority) News (/about/news) Contracts and Solicitations (/about/contracts) Employment Opportunities (/about/employment)

About

Leland Building527 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, IL 62701

(https://www.google.com/maps/place/527+East+Capitol+Avenue,Springfield,IL) Michael A. Bilandic Building

160 North LaSalle, Ste. C-800, Chicago, Illinois 60601(https://www.google.com/maps/place/160+North+LaSalle+Street,Chicago,IL) Compliance Office

9511 West Harrison, Des Plaines, Illinois 60016(https://www.google.com/maps/place/9511+West+Harrison,Des+Plaines,IL)

Offices

(//www.illinois.gov/)

Web Accessibility (//www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=32765) State Phone Directory (//cmsapps.illinois.gov/TeleDirectory) State Agencies (//www.illinois.gov/SitePages/Agencies.aspx) Illinois Privacy Info (//www.illinois.gov/Pages/Privacy.aspx)

Governor JB Pritzker (//www.illinois.gov/GOV/) 2020 State of Illinois (//www.illinois.gov/)

https://www.icc.illinois.gov/sitemap.aspxhttps://www.icc.illinois.gov/privacy.htmhttps://www.icc.illinois.gov/rss/https://www.icc.illinois.gov/about/contact-ushttps://www.icc.illinois.gov/about/FOIAhttps://www.icc.illinois.gov/meetings/https://www.icc.illinois.gov/icc-authorityhttps://www.icc.illinois.gov/about/newshttps://www.icc.illinois.gov/about/contractshttps://www.icc.illinois.gov/about/employmenthttps://www.google.com/maps/place/527+East+Capitol+Avenue,Springfield,ILhttps://www.google.com/maps/place/160+North+LaSalle+Street,Chicago,ILhttps://www.google.com/maps/place/9511+West+Harrison,Des+Plaines,ILhttps://twitter.com/ILCommerceCommhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH8WDc1Dq0RUzqBzqUTMQFAhttps://www.illinois.gov/https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=32765https://cmsapps.illinois.gov/TeleDirectoryhttps://www.illinois.gov/SitePages/Agencies.aspxhttps://www.illinois.gov/Pages/Privacy.aspxhttps://www.illinois.gov/GOV/https://www.illinois.gov/

Exhibit B

From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 2:07 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Settlement Demand--Shekar v ComEd ICC no. 19-0863

Ms. Gomez, We have recently been retained by Mr. Shekar to pursue this matter. He advised that we should communicate with you on behalf of ComEd. In an effort to avoid costly and time consuming litigation we herby submit our client’s settlement demand. I look forward to hearing from you. Ed Hull

Exhibit C

1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

KANE COUNTY, ILLINOIS

ROGER SHEKAR

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMONWEALTH EDISION

COMPANY, MONTERREY SECURITY

CONSULTANTS, INC, EXELON corporation,

RICHARD RODERICK, GARY DISHROON

INTREN HOLDING , LLC , d/b/a USIC LLC ,

John Doe 1-3 of ComEd

John Doe 4 of Monterrey Security,

John Does 5-6 of Intren, USIC,

LAURA SIEDLESKI,

DANIEL SPYCHALSKY,

STREAMWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, )

VILLAGE OF STREAMWOOD, )

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO.

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT and JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Roger Shekar, by and through his attorneys, Cutler & Hull, and

complains of all Defendants as follows:

PARTIES AND BACKGROUND FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. On or about July 3, 2019 and at all times relevant, Roger Shekar was an American citizen

and a resident of Illinois.

2. On or about July 3, 2019 and at all times relevant Commonwealth Edison Company

(hereinafter “ComEd”) was a business doing business in Kane County Illinois.

CMC ON LAST PAGE

Kane County Circuit Court THOMAS M. HARTWELL ACCEPTED: 4/17/2020 10:02 AM By: JC Env #9094738

20-L-000196

4/16/2020 5:49 PM

2

3. On or about July 3, 2019 and at all times relevant Monterrey Security Consultants, Inc.

(hereinafter “Monterrey”) was a business doing business in Kane County Illinois

4. On or about July 3, 2019and at all times relevant INTREN HOLDING, LLC, d/b/a USIC

LLC was a business doing business in Kane County Illinois

5. On or about July 3, 2019 and at all times relevant Village of Streamwood is a Municipal

Corporation with extensive business dealings with businesses located in Kane County,

Illinois.

6. On or about July 3, 2019 and at all times relevant Richard Roderick and Gary Dishroon

were individuals that resided in the state of Illinois.

7. On or about July 3, 2019 and at all times relevant Laura Siedleski, and Daniel Spychalsky

were police officers with the Village of Streamwood and individuals that resided in the state

of Illinois.

8. Roger Shekar is an American citizen and a resident of Illinois for over 25 years. Mr. Shekar,

a family man, lives at the family home located in Streamwood Illinois.

9. Mr. Shekar is a well-educated, professional engineer, a summa cum laude graduate in

Electrical & Electronics engineering with high honors; an M.B.A and also has a degree in

Law, LL.B -a Bachelor of Law degree, from a British School. Mr.Shekar is also owns and

runs a Corporation as President & CEO , which is involved in Manufacturing Electronic

Products for multiple industrial sectors.

10. On or about July 3, 2019 and prior thereto Mr. Shekar had decided to put his home up for

sale.

11. In February 2019 ComEd came, with no advance notice as required under 220 ILCS 5/1-101,

to Mr. Shekar’s home intending to perform vegetation management activities but did not

3

perform the vegetation management activities because the weather was not conducive to their

intended activities.

12. In February 2019 Mr. Shekar advised and reminded ComEd of its obligation to provide

homeowners with 21 days advanced notice of any vegetation management activities in the

area of and on the homeowner’s property. This obligation is contained in 220 ILCS 5/1-101

et. seq.

13. At that time, in February 2019, ComEd personnel confirmed that they knew of their notice

obligations and assured Mr. Shekar that they would provide the required 21 days’ notice for

future that requires access to his property.

14. Mr. Shekar reasonably relied on ComEd’s assurances and promises that they would provide

the required 21 days’ notice.

15. Prior to July 3, 2019 Mr. Shekar planned an “open house” for his home sale. He planned for

the open house to take place over the weekend of July 3, 2019.

16. In connection with the planned open house Mr. Shekar spent a great deal of time getting his

house ready and in particular spent a great deal of time getting the outside areas—lawn,

plantings, vegetation, gardens, etc.—ready for the open house because he knew that “curb

appeal” was very important if a person wanted to sell their home.

17. Mr. Shekar’s open house was scheduled to begin on July 3, 2019 and was planned to

continue for the entire long Fourth of July weekend.

18. On July 3, 2019 all the homes in the Shekar’s cul-de- sac had uninterrupted electric power.

19. Mr. Shekar was aware of electrical power failures in the past 18 years and knows that they

were a rare occurrence. Further, on those prior occasions the power came back on in a few

4

minutes with ComEd being to correct the problem remotely and without having to come out

to his cul-de-sac.

20. On that day, July 3, 2019, with no advance notice, ComEd personnel showed up at Mr.

Shekar’s home and began digging and excavating in many different places in and about Mr.

Shekar’s front and side yards.

21. On or about July 3, 2019 and before there were no prior markings by JULIE or any other

utility line locating service anywhere on Mr. Shekar’s property which is required well in

advance of any excavation in and around the underground utility lines. Such markings would

have given Mr. Shekar some advance notice of ComEd’s actions and would allow Mr.

Shekar a chance to tell ComEd to reschedule due to the planned “open house”

22. On July 3, 2019 Mr. Shekar tried to get an explanation from ComEd and USIC as to why the

ComEd personnel, representatives and agents showed up at his property that day and what

they were doing to his lawn and outside property. He reminded them of their promises and

obligation to give 21 days’ advance notice before any such work. Further, Mr. Shekar asked

the ComEd person who seemed to be the supervisor to contact Bradley Perkins, ComEd’s

counsel and with whom Mr. Shekar had been dealing regarding the need for ComEd to

provide 21 days advance notice.

23. The ComEd personnel ignored Mr. Shekar’s requests and questions and continued with their

digging and excavating.

24. Mr. Shekar told one of the ComEd workers when they came to his property on July 3, 2019

that he had an open house planned and that they were ruining his ability to have the open

house and to sell his home. After this short conversation, Mr. Shekar went inside and had no

further contacts with the ComEd personnel, employees, representatives or agents.

5

25. The conversations described above between Mr. Shekar and ComEd personnel took place on

his front porch with only Mr. Shekar and one ComEd individual being on the front porch.

Two other individuals, who Mr. Shekar presumed were ComEd workers, were not in the

immediate vicinity of the front porch and were standing some 50 feet away from the front

porch area near their truck when these conversations were taking place.

26. Thereafter, Mr. Shekar witnessed through his living room window that ComEd had

apparently called a security firm to come and “take care of” Mr. Shekar. In addition, ComEd

summoned the Village of Streamwood police to come to the property.

27. Richard Roderick of ComEd called the Village of Streamwood police on July 3, 2019 to have

them show up at Mr. Shekar’s home while ComEd was at the Shekar property.

28. The Village of Streamwood police arrived shortly after receiving the call from Roderick.

They arrived in marked squad cars and a total of two uniformed officers arrived in separate

marked cars.

29. Upon arrival at the Shekar home on July 3, 2019 Village of Streamwood police officer Laura

Siedleski spoke with Richard Roderick of ComEd and Gary Dishroon of USIC.

30. In the July 3, 2019 conversation with officer Siedleski, Richard Roderick stated that “Raj

Shekar has made threats to ComEd employees in the past”. This statement was untrue, and

Roderick knew or should have known at the time he made it that it was untrue.

31. In the July 3, 2019 conversation with officer Siedleski Gary Dishroon also stated that “Raj


Dishroon knew or should have known at the time he made it that it was untrue.

32. The only time Mr. Shekar had ever had any conversations with a ComEd worker at his

property was on July 3, 2019 and the substance of those short conversations with ComEd

6

personnel are set forth in paragraphs 22-25 above. During those conversations Mr. Shekar

did not make any threats.

33. On July 3, 2019 Mr. Shekar did not speak with anyone who identified themselves as

Richard Roderick of ComEd or Gary Dishroon of USIC.

34. In the 18 years prior to July 3, 2019 Mr. Shekar had seen ComEd personnel on his property at

least five times and he did not have any interaction with anyone from ComEd at any of those

times.

35. On the five prior occasions ComEd personnel were on Mr. Shekar’s property, Mr. Shekar

did not receive 21 days advance notice from ComEd.

36. In 2016, ComEd, on one of the five prior occasions where they came to Mr. Shekar’s

property the workers left a patch of approximately 5’ x 8’ of vegetation and lawn damaged

and unrepaired. Since then, Mr.Shekar has invoked his 21 days’ notice requirement.

37. The security firm that was called by ComEd on July 3, 2019 was Monterrey Security. They

arrived at the Shekar property shortly after being called by ComEd.

38. At all relevant times herein, Mr. Shekar was unarmed, was not “wielding” or otherwise

holding any “sticks, bats, sledgehammers” or other such item, and other than as described herein

was not even outside his home.

39. The threatening conduct by ComEd, its employees, personnel, representatives and agents

and the threatening conduct by Monterrey Security and its employees, personnel, representatives

and agents including the John Doe of Monterrey Security who was flashing his guns, posed an

imminent and clear and present danger, causing panic and fear to grip Mr. Shekar and causing an

apprehension and fear that he would be the victim of an immediate assault and battery by the

7

individuals described in the above paragraphs, as well as posing a threat of harm to Mr. Shekar,

and preventing him from trying to protect his privacy and property rights.

40. At all relevant times herein, Mr. Shekar was a family man, did not and does not own or

have a gun card, a gun license or guns of any kind.

41. Monterrey Security personnel were armed with handguns and proceeded to take the

handguns out and threaten Mr. Shekar while they had the handguns out. The Streamwood police

officers did not arrest any of the Monterrey Security persons despite them openly showing their

guns in violation of concealed carry laws. This further made Mr. Shekar concerned for his safety

and the safety of his property.

42. On or about July 3, 2019 Mr. Shekar was knowledgeable about where the utility easement

lines were on his outside property.

43. As Mr. Shekar observed the ComEd personnel digging and excavating many areas on and

about his outside property he could see that they were digging and excavating in areas

outside the utility easement.

44. The damage done by ComEd included removal of several plantings, vegetations, expensive

evergreen vegetations, a charred black lawn due to ComEd running a truck onto the front

lawn and parking the truck inside the lawn with the hot engine running without a plywood

platform or similar protection normally placed under such a truck while such repair work is

underway.

45. The damage further includes broken landscape lights and trashed uprooted landscape wiring

and damages to a centerpiece blocking wall and separation of blocks and collapse of blocking

walls bricks that were in Mr. Shekar’s front yard at the time.

8

46. As a result of the damage Mr. Shekar’s lawn must be completely re-built, ground-up starting

with removing the mountains of clay piled up like hills in various places in the front yard;

filling the deep holes of over 5 feet in depth and 3 feet in diameter; leveling the ground;

preparation for putting down new sod covering a minimum of 1500 sq. feet; materials and

labor for putting down new sod; planting new evergreen bushes damaged by defendants; and

replacing all landscape lights damaged and destroyed by ComEd.

47. As a direct and proximate result of this damage by ComEd Mr. Shekar had to cancel his

long planned open house and lost the ability to sell his home because the “curb appeal” had been

catastrophically destroyed and Mr. Shekar could not pay the large amount of money it would

have taken to repair the damage to his outside property. During the weekend he had planned to

conduct his open house one of the other 5 homes in his cul-de-sac sold.

COUNT I

Negligence

(ComEd, Exelon, USIC, Intren, John Does 1- 6)

48. Plaintiff repeats and realleges as though set forth herein paragraphs 1-47 of this Complaint as

and for paragraph 48 of Count I.

49. On or about July 3, 2019 and before ComEd through its employees and authorized agents and

representatives owed a duty of ordinary care to homeowners such as Mr. Shekar when

conducting any and all activities, including digging and excavating, on a homeowner’s

property and to conduct such activities in accordance with all statutory and common law

obligations and in a manner designed to not cause damage to the homeowners property.

9

50. On or about July 3, 2019 ComEd breached its duty and was negligent in one of the following

ways:

a. Carelessly and negligently managed, directed and supervised its employees, agents and

representatives;

b. Carelessly and negligently failed to properly to conduct its digging and excavation

activities on and about Mr. Shekar’s property in a safe and proper manner;

c. Carelessly and negligently failed to conduct its digging and excavation activities on

and about Mr. Shekar’s property within the utility easements;

d. Carelessly and negligently went to portions of Mr. Shekar’s property where there were

no utility easements or utility lines such as the back yard of Mr. Shekar’s property;

e. Carelessly and negligently failed to investigate the existence of a utility line failure or

verify the existence of a power outage in and about the cul-de-sac where Mr. Shekar’s

property was located before conducting any digging or excavating;

f. Carelessly and negligently failed to conduct its digging and excavation activities on

and about Mr. Shekar’s property such that the activities would not cause property

damage to Mr. Shekar’s outside property as described herein;

g. Carelessly and negligently failed to repair the property damage in and around Mr.

Shekar’s outside property;

h. Carelessly and negligently allowed the area in and about Mr. Shekar’s outside property

to be and remain in disrepair;

i. Carelessly and negligently failed to provide Mr. Shekar with the required notice before

beginning the digging and excavating as described herein;

j. Carelessly and negligently caused Mr. Shekar’s outside property to have holes, broken

10

landscape block, broken lights, destroyed vegetation, evergreen trees, uneven surfaces,

and depressions, in and around said premises;

k. Failed to fix any of the above damages.

l. Carelessly and negligently refused to respond to Mr. Shekar’s requests to have the

damage repaired in a timely manner;

m. Carelessly and negligently failed to timely repair the damage to Mr. Shekar’s property;

51. Defendant, ComEd, knew or should have known of the foregoing careless and negligent

actions by its personnel, agents, and representatives.

52. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid careless and negligent acts

and/or omissions on the part of the Defendant, ComEd, its agents, representatives and

employees, Mr. Shekar’s property was severely damaged, he lost the chance and ability to

sell his house and was otherwise damaged and suffered losses including emotional distress

damages which include chronic anxiety, worry, inability to sleep because of fear and worry

over the damage, the failure to repair and the loss of his ability to sell his house.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ROGR SHEKAR, prays for judgment to be entered in his favor

and against the defendant, COMED, Excelon, USIC, Intren and Does 1-6 in an amount in excess

of $50,000 which this Court deems just and proper, plus costs.

COUNT II

Willful, Wanton and Reckless Disregard

(ComEd, USIC, Intren, and John Does 1-6)


and for paragraph 53 of Count II.

54. On or about July 3, 2019 and before ComEd, USIC, Intren and John Does 1-6 (hereinafter

“Defendants”) through their employees and authorized agents and representatives knew that

11

they were coming to Mr. Shekar’s property to dig and excavate in and about the outside areas

of Mr. Shekar’s property.

55. On or about July 3, 2019 and before Defendants through their employees and authorized

agents and representatives knew that they owed a duty to homeowners such as Mr. Shekar

when conducting any and all activities, including digging and excavating, on a homeowner’s

property and knew that they were to conduct such activities in accordance with all statutory

and common law obligations and in a manner designed to not cause damage to the

homeowners property.

56. On or about July 3, 2019 Defendants breached their duty and acted willfully, wantonly and

with reckless disregard in one of the following ways:

a. Failed to make sure that the onsite personnel informed Mr. Shekar, prior to doing any

work, exactly what they were going to do, where they were going to do it and why;

b. Failed to conduct its digging and excavation activities on and about Mr. Shekar’s

property in a safe and proper manner;

c. Failed to conduct its digging and excavation activities on and about Mr. Shekar’s

property within the utility easements;

d. Failed to mark the utility easements and location of the underground lines prior to

conducting its digging and excavation activities on and about Mr. Shekar’s property;

e. Failed to confine their actions to the portions of Mr. Shekar’s property where there

were utility easements or utility lines;

f. Failed to investigate and verify the existence of a utility line failure or damage or verify

the existence of a power outage in and about the cul de sac where Mr. Shekar’s

property was located prior to conducting any excavation or digging activities;

12

g. Failed to conduct its digging and excavation activities on and about Mr. Shekar’s

property such that the activities would not cause property damage to Mr. Shekar’s

outside property as described herein;

h. Ignored Mr. Shekar’s requests, as described herein, for rescheduling the work after the

open house and to contact Mr. Perkins, the ComEd counsel with whom Mr. Shekar had

been dealing regarding ComEd work on his property;

i. Failed to provide 21 days’ notice when there was no emergency and no power failure at

any of the homes in Mr. Shekar’s cul-de-sac ;

j. Refused to repair the property damage in and around Mr. Shekar’s outside property

caused by their excavating and digging;

k. Failed to provide Mr. Shekar with the required notice before beginning the digging and

excavating as described herein;

l. Failed to listen to or act on Mr. Shekar’s information shared with ComEd that there

were no power failures and failed to investigate or listen to Mr. Shekar’s warnings that

the excavation and digging were outside the utility easements;

m. Failed to excavate and dig only in the utility easement which caused Mr. Shekar’s

outside property to have holes, broken landscape block, broken lights, destroyed

vegetation, evergreen trees, damages to the wirings leading to the fountain timer,

uneven surfaces, and depressions, in and around said premises;

n. Failed to respond to Mr. Shekar’s requests to have the damage repaired in a timely

manner;

57. Defendant, ComEd, knew or should have known of the foregoing willful, wanton and

reckless disregard by its personnel, agents and representatives when they were digging and

13

excavating in and around Mr. Shekar’s property as described herein.

58. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid acts and/or omissions on the

part of the Defendants, Mr. Shekar’s property was severely damaged, he lost the chance to

sell his house and was otherwise damaged and suffered losses including emotional distress

damages which include chronic anxiety, worry, inability to sleep because of fear and worry

over the damage, the failure to repair and the loss of his ability to sell his house.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ROGER SHEKAR, prays for judgment to be entered in his

favor and against the Defendants, in an amount in excess of $50,000 plus punitive damages

which this Court deems just and proper, plus costs.

COUNT III

Negligence

(Monterrey Security, John Doe 4 of Monterrey)


and for paragraph 59 of Count III.

60. On or about July 3, 2019 and before Monterrey Security through its employees and

authorized agents and representatives owed a duty of ordinary care to homeowners such as

Mr. Shekar when conducting any and all activities, including security services, in and about a

homeowner’s property and to conduct such activities in accordance with all statutory and

common law obligations and in a manner designed to not cause injury or damage to the

homeowner or the homeowner’s property.

61. On or about July 3, 2019 Monterrey Security breached its duty and was negligent in one of

the following ways:

a. Carelessly and negligently managed, directed and supervised its employees, agents and

representatives;

14

b. Carelessly and negligently failed to properly to conduct its security services on and

about Mr. Shekar’s property in a safe and proper manner;

c. Carelessly and negligently failed to conduct its security services such that the activities

would not cause injury and damage to Mr. Shekar and his outside property as described

herein;

d. Carelessly and negligently brandished and openly showed their weapons in front of Mr.

Shekar;

e. Carelessly and negligently acted in a manner designed to intimidate and cause fear to

Mr. Shekar;

f. Carelessly and negligently failed to talk with Mr. Shekar to determine what his

concerns were and to determine how his concerns should affect their security services;

g. Carelessly and negligently failed to properly train their employees, representative and

agents that were at Mr. Shekar’s property as described herein;

h. Carelessly and negligently failed to determine the truth of what they had been told to

determine if their security services were needed at the property;

i. Carelessly and negligently refused to respond to Mr. Shekar’s requests to be allowed to

speak with the ComEd personnel as described herein;

62. Defendant, Monterrey Security, knew or should have known of the foregoing careless and

negligent actions by its personnel, agents, and representatives.

63. Mr. Shekar contacted Monterrey management and reported the threatening and disturbing

conduct of Monterrey Security and of John Doe 1 and in return Management personnel of

Monterrey Security threatened Mr. Shekar.

64. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid careless and negligent acts

15

and/or omissions on the part of the Defendant, Monterrey Security, its agents, representatives

and employees, Mr. Shekar’s property was severely damaged , he lost the chance to sell his

house and the loss of his ability to sell his house, and was otherwise damaged and suffered

losses including emotional distress damages which include chronic anxiety, worry, inability

to sleep because of fear and worry over the damage and fear for his life and injury to him by

the threats the of firearms being flashed at him .

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ROGER SHEKAR, prays for judgment to be entered in his favor

and against the defendant, Monterrey Security, in an amount in excess of $50,000 which this

Court deems just and proper, plus costs.

COUNT IV

Trespass

(ComEd, Monterrey, John Does 1 -6, Intren, USIC, Siedleski,

Spychalsky, John Doe 1 of ComEd, Village of Streamwood)


and for paragraph 65 of Count IV.

66. On or about July 3, 2019 and before ComEd through its employees and authorized agents and

representatives knew or should have known where the utility easements were located on Mr.

Shekar’s property.

67. On or about July 3, 2019 ComEd through its employees and authorized agents and

representatives came to Mr. Shekar’s property and began digging and excavating outside of

the utility easements located on Mr. Shekar’s property.

68. On or about July 3, 2019 ComEd through its employees and authorized agents and

representatives came to Mr. Shekar’s property and began walking all over the property,

bringing equipment and trucks onto the property without regard for the confines of the utility

easements located on Mr. Shekar’s property. These activities and equipment were on many

16

different parts of Mr. Shekar’s property and were outside of the utility easements located on

Mr. Shekar’s property.

69. ComEd regularly performs work on its facilities located within property owner’s utility

easements and on or about July 3, 2019 was knowledgeable about such easements and work

within those easements.

70. Defendant, ComEd, knew or should have known that the actions by its personnel, agents and

representatives as described herein were trespassing on Mr. Shekar’s private property and

were taking place outside of the utility easements located on Mr. Shekar’s property.

71. On July 3, 2019 and before ComEd, and John Doe 1of ComEd were fully aware of the “lay

of the land” as to where the underground cables are running from the plot survey, utility

easements and non-easement areas and from prior visits to the Mr. Shekar’s property. They

were fully aware there was no cable, or any utility or electrical wiring running in the fenced

back yard.

72. Nonetheless, with a deliberate intent to cause additional property damage, Siedleski and

Spychalsky, and Village of Streamwood (hereinafter “Defendants”) broke two panels of the

Shekar back-yard fence to enter the back yard and thereby continued their trespass of Mr.

Shekar’s property and enabled the other defendants, John Doe 1 of ComEd, ComEd and

USIC to continue their trespass of Mr. Shekar’s property.

73. Defendants broke the fence panels without first trying to determine if there was any need for

ComEd personnel to enter or be in the back yard of the Shekar property.

74. Defendants broke the fence panels without first trying to determine if there were any utility

easements in the back yard and without determining whether ComEd personnel had

permission or authority to enter or be in the back yard of the Shekar property.

17

75. Defendants broke the fence panels without first trying to determine if there was any alternate

means of entering the back yard or determining if Mr. Shekar would give them permission to

enter the back yard.

76. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the aforesaid acts and/or omissions and the

multiple acts of trespass on the part of the Defendant, ComEd, its agents, representatives and

employees, and the other defendants named in this count, Mr. Shekar’s property was severely

damaged, he lost the chance and ability to sell his house and was otherwise damaged and

suffered losses including emotional distress damages which include chronic anxiety, worry,

inability to sleep because of fear and worry over the damage and fear for his life and injury to

his person by the actions of ComEd and its agents, representatives and employees.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ROGER SHEKAR, prays for judgment to be entered in his

favor and against the defendant, ComEd, USIC Siedleski, Spychalsky, and Village of

Streamwood in an amount in excess of $50,000 plus punitive damages which this Court deems

just and proper, plus costs.

COUNT V

Defamation, Defamation per se

ComEd, Roderick, Dishroon and Intren d/b/a USIC , Spychalsky, Siedleski, and

Village of Streamwood


and for paragraph 77 of Count V.

78. On or about July 3, 2019 and before Richard Roderick of ComEd was a supervisor and

corporate security director for ComEd.

18

79. On or about July 3, 2019 and before Richard Roderick of ComEd told the Village of

Streamwood police that he was a supervisor and corporate security director for ComEd and

that he was at the Shekar property on official ComEd business.

80. On or about July 3, 2019 and before and at all times relevant herein Richard Roderick of

ComEd was acting within the course and scope of his employment with ComEd and was

acting at all relevant times by and on behalf of ComEd.

81. On or about July 3, 2019 and before Gary Dishroon of Intren d/b/a USIC was a supervisor for

Intren d/b/a USIC.

82. On or about July 3, 2019 and before Gary Dishroon of Intren d/b/a USIC told the Village of

Streamwood police that he was a supervisor for Intren d/b/a USIC and that he was at the

Shekar property on official Intren d/b/a USIC business.

83. On or about July 3, 2019 and before and at all times relevant herein Gary Dishroon of Intren

d/b/a USIC was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Intren d/b/a

USIC and was acting at all relevant times by and on behalf of Intren d/b/a USIC.

84. On or about July 3, 2019 Richard Roderick of ComEd called the Village of Streamwood

police to have them show up at Mr. Shekar’s home while ComEd was at the Shekar property.

85. The Village of Streamwood police arrived shortly after receiving the call from Roderick.

86. Upon arrival at the Shekar home the Village of Streamwood police officer Laura Siedleski

spoke with Richard Roderick of ComEd and Gary Dishroon of USIC.

87. In the conversation on July 3, 2019 with officer Siedleski, Richard Roderick stated that “Raj


Roderick knew or should have known at the time he made it that it was untrue.

19

88. In the conversation on July 3, 2019 with officer Siedleski, Gary Dishroon also stated that

“Raj Shekar has made threats to ComEd employees in the past”. This statement was untrue,

and Dishroon knew or should have known at the time he made it that it was untrue.

89. Roderick and Dishroon did not take any steps, prior to making the statements on July 3,

2019 described herein, to determine or verify the truth or accuracy of what they were saying

to Officer Siedleski and made those statements with reckless disregard to the falsity of those

statements and the injurious and defamatory effect such statements would have on Mr.

Shekar.

90. The statements made by Roderick and Dishroon on July 3, 2019, as described herein, were

made to cause the Village of Streamwood police to conclude that Mr. Shekar had committed

a crime by saying that he “made a threat to ComEd employees in the past” and cause them to

remain at the Shekar property which caused injury and damage to Mr. Shekar’s reputation in

his cul-de-sac and caused him to be in fear of his life with armed police officers at his

property.

91. The statements made by Roderick and Dishroon on July 3, 2019, as described herein,

communicated to officer Siedleski and others within hearing range that Mr. Shekar had

committed a crime by making “threats to ComEd employees”.

92. The statements made by Roderick and Dishroon on July 3, 2019, as described herein, when

taken together with the very visible arrival of the Village of Streamwood police, in two

marked patrol cars, communicated to all within hearing range and those who could see what

was taking place at the Shekar residence that Mr. Shekar was some sort of dangerous

criminal and a large and visible police presence was necessary to protect his neighbors, the

public and ComEd workers from him.

20

93. Roderick and Dishroon did not take any steps, prior to making the statements on July 3, 2019

described herein, to determine or verify the truth or accuracy of what they were saying to

Officer Siedleski and knew the falsity of those statements and that they had not taken any

steps to determine the truth or accuracy of those statements.

94. Village of Streamwood police Chief Syre dispatched Spychalsky and Siedleski in marked

squad cars without 911 calls as required under the Streamwood Police dept. policy for

marked squad cars and uniformed police officers to be dispatched to any place of residence.

95. In addition, the two marked squad cars were parked outside Mr.Shekar’s property

driveway by the two defendants Spychalsky and Siedleski for the entire day for over 12

hours on July 3, 2019 , and indulged in a defamatory spectacle of Mr.Shekar for the entire

neighborhood to watch. At the end of the day on July 3, 2019 , with total reckless

disregard to Mr.Shekar’s property, Siedleski left the trash of several emptied water bottles

in the front yard of Mr. Shekar’s property.

96. The statements made by Roderick and Dishroon on July 3, 2019, as described herein, when

taken together with the very visible arrival of the Village of Streamwood police, in two

marked patrol cars, communicated to all within hearing range and those who could see what

was taking place at the Shekar residence that Mr. Shekar was some sort of dangerous

criminal and a large and visible police presence was necessary to protect his neighbors, the

public and ComEd workers from him.

97. As a direct and proximate result of the false and defamatory statements made by Roderick

and Dishroon on July 3, 2019, as described herein, Mr. Shekar suffered clear and lasting

damage to his reputation and standing in the community, humiliation, public humiliation,

fear for his life with armed police officers and armed security personnel very visibly present

21

on his property on July 3, 2019, his property was severely damaged, he lost the chance and

ability to sell his house and was otherwise damaged and suffered losses including emotional

distress damages which include chronic anxiety, worry, inability to sleep because of fear and

worry over the damage and fear for his life and injury to his person by the actions of ComEd

and its agents, representatives and employees.


and against the defendants, Roderick, Dishroon, ComEd, and Intren d/b/a USIC in an amount in

excess of $50,000 plus punitive damages which this Court deems just and proper, plus costs.

COUNT VI

Intentional Tort - Property Damages

(ComEd, Siedleski, Spychalsky, John Doe 1, Village of Streamwood)

98. Plaintiff repeats and realleges as though set forth herein paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint

as and for paragraph 98 of Count VI.

99. On July 3, 2019 and before ComEd and John Doe 1-5 were fully aware of the “lay of the

land” as to where the underground cables are running from the plot survey, utility easements

and non-easement areas and from prior visits to the Mr. Shekar’s property. They were fully

aware there was no cable, or any utility or electrical wiring running in the fenced back yard.

100. Nonetheless, with a deliberate intent to cause additional property damages, Siedleski,

Spychalsky, John Doe 1, Village of Streamwood, John Doe 1 of ComEd (hereinafter

“Defendants”) broke two panels of the back-yard fence to enter the back yard.

101. Defendants broke the fence panels without first trying to determine if there was any need

for ComEd personnel to enter or be in the back yard of the Shekar property.

22

102. Defendants broke the fence panels without first trying to determine if there were any

utility easements in the back yard and without determining whether ComEd personnel had

permission or authority to enter or be in the back yard of the Shekar property.

103. Defendants broke the fence panels without first trying to determine if there was an

Emergency or court order giving ComEd personnel permission or authority to enter or be in

the back yard of the Shekar property.

104. Defendants broke the fence panels despite failing to use every possible means to contact

Mr. Shekar for permission to enter or be in the back yard of the Shekar property, knowing

full well Mr. Shekar was inside his home with his family for the Fourth of July week-end as

well as to welcome prospective buyers for the scheduled “open house’ ..

105. Defendants ignored Mr. Shekar’s conversations with the ComEd personnel on his front

porch as described herein prior to the defendants entering the back yard.

106. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongdoing described herein Mr. Shekar suffered

the damage to and loss of the back-yard fencing.

107. The damages to install a custom manufactured new fence to repair, replace and bring the

fence back to its appearance and functionality prior to the wrongdoing were significant.

108. The damages caused requires Mr. Shekar to install a custom manufactured new fence to

replace one complete portion of the back-yard fence for an estimated cost $17,000.


and against the defendants, Siedleski, Spychalsky, ComEd, John Doe , Village of Streamwood

in an amount in excess of $20,000 plus punitive damages which this Court deems just and

proper, plus costs.

23

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Demands Trial by Jury on all facts and counts pleaded herein and triable before Jury.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Roger Shekar prays:

A. that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendants;

B. awarding Shekar compensatory damages;

C. awarding Shekar punitive damages;

D. awarding Shekar pre-judgment interest;

E. awarding Shekar his attorney’s fees, court costs and all other costs incurred as

may be permitted by law; and

G. granting Shekar such other and further relief as this Court may deem just.

Dated: April 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ed Hull

Cutler & Hull

70 W. Madison, Suite 2101

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 726-0777

[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff


24

ATTESTATION AND VERIFICATION

Roger Shekar individually states that under the penalties provided by law as set forth in

735 ILCS 5/1-109 he has read the foregoing document, and the statements made herein are true,

correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief.

________________

Roger Shekar

NOTICEBY ORDER OF THE COURT THIS CASE IS HEREBY SET FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON THE DATE BELOW.FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN THE CASE BEING DISMISSED OR AN ORDER OF DEFAULT BEING ENTERED.Judge: Clancy Boles, Susan 7/2/2020 9:00 AM

Exhibit D

1

STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION

Roger Shekar , )

Petitioner, )

v. )

) 19-0863


)

Respondent. )

REVISED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF DAMAGES

Petitioner respectfully requests this Commission to grant Summary Judgment and Summary

Award of damages for an amount as pleaded in this motion in favor of the petitioner

Roger Shekar and against the respondent Common Wealth Edison .

In support thereof , Petitioner state as follows:

1. Plaintiff incorporates the original complaint , the supplements to the complaint , E mail

letters to Chairman of Illinois Commerce Commission, all the 71 pictures of property

damages sent by E mail to Chairman Zalewski and Judge Dolan , which are all filed with the

Clerk of the ICC and are all part of the case file.

2. In addition all the 71 evidence pictures of the property damages had been sent multiple times

to the Respondent Commonwealth Edison which are all in their possession and their

counsel have access to those pictures.

3. The evidence of property damages pictures was also E mailed to the following many times

after the July 3, 2019 catastrophic damages caused by ComEd , demanding ComEd to

quickly and timely to repair the lawn including damages caused by other parties who are

subcontractors of ComEd such as Intern , USIC etc.; ComEd maliciously , deliberately

ignored all the demands by the Petitioner to repair timely, diligently. The said E mails were

sent to the following : [email protected]; [email protected] ;

2

[email protected];[email protected]; Anne.Pramaggiore@co

med.com; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected] [email protected];

4. As sated above , as a show of reckless indifference and arrogance, for over seven weeks since

the alleged repair completed on July 3, 2019, ComEd ignored the multiple ultimatums by

the petitioner demanding to repair the landscape damages and the catastrophic curb appeal

damages caused on July 3, 2019 and did not even care to respond and abandoned any repair

nether had any intent to repair .

5. The informal complaint with ICC was filed on July 11, 2019 which also ComEd ignored

to respond for weeks , by which time the damages became permanent and irreparable and

escalated to permanent damages due to the piles of sand, clay and soil dug out over for over

ten feet depth and left in the landscape like a mountain, became a rock, and thus

completely killed any growth of lawn, besides very hot conditions in July and August

made the mountain of soil a rock as shown in the pictures.

6. It was not until Petitioner filed a formal complaint in mid-August with ICC demanding a

hearing after several weeks of initial informal complaint , ComEd sent a back dated letter

of August 9 , 2019, postmarked August 16, 2019 asking to release ComEd and its

subcontractors from any liabilities , law suits in exchange for $ 3000 to repair the lawn for

the damages caused by ComEd, as if it is some sort of favor . Anyone who committed this

felony property damages would be serving time in prison now.

7. The ridiculous offer was rejected immediately on August 17, 2019 which ComEd counsel

‘pretended’ as if he was not aware of it on September 18, 2019 status hearing .

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

3

I. PROPERTY DAMAGES

8. This Commission Administrative Law Judge Dolan acknowledged on status hearing on

September 18, 2019 and stated that he has in his possession all the property damages

pictures split in multiple E mails (due to size limitations ) and those pictures would be used

at the time of evidentiary hearing.

9. Petitioner is not required to prove twice his damages in an evidentiary hearing , as the

damages caused are already proved as evidenced in many numerous pictures. There is no

defense or response by ComEd other than indulging in deliberate dilatory conduct seeking

extensive time to respond on a matter there is nothing to respond.

10. Petitioner is filing this this Motion for summary judgment and to set the matter for prove-up.

11. For reasons stated in Emergency Motion for Expeditious hearing, Petitioner cannot wait for

a prolonged schedule of long response time for 35 days for respondent to respond , besides

Petitioner needed to have his landscape restored very soon , also intend to sue ComEd and

others as shown Exhibit A , in Law Division as well as file simultaneously a Declaratory

Judgment Action in Chancery Division if a satisfactory resolution is not arrived timely and

swiftly by the Commission .

12. Besides, the urgency being petitioner house is listed for sale and he cannot sell his home ,

attract buyers , conduct open houses due to the catastrophic damages done to the property

by ComEd and made the landscape an eyesore.

13. Petitioner’s landscape of 1500 square feet has to be completely installed from scratch ,

ground- up starting from removing the mountains of clay piled up like a hill in various

places in front yard, which became a rock as shown in the pictures; filling the deep holes of

over 10 feet in depth and 3 feet in diameter; leveling the ground ; preparation for soding for

4

1500 sq. Feet ; materials and labor for soding; material and labor for planting new vegetation

and evergreen bushes uprooted, damaged by ComEd; landscape lights damaged and

destroyed by ComEd , all totals $ 38000 .

14. Due to extensive damages done by ComEd - preparation for soding for the new landscape is

highly labor intensive , which include removing all the hills of sand and rock and soil piled

up, burnt grass et. The landscape ground is so extensively damaged , lot of special treatments to

prepare the ground to be done before soding to have any effect as the landscape is rendered a

concrete desert by ComEd , more like a concrete floor. The labor rate, plus materials included

is $ 22 per sq. ft , which makes $33000 for the landscape alone ( 1500 sq. ft x $22= $33000) ;

plus evergreen bushes and labor to plant , landscape land scape lights add $ 5000 for total of

$ 38000

II . PUNITIVE DAMAGES

15. Additionally , pursuant to 220 ILCS 50/11) (from Ch. 111 2/3, par. 1611) Sec. 11.

Penalties; liability; fund. 220 ILCS 5/8-505.1 (a)(2) , petitioner seeks $40,000 as penalty for

EIGHT VIOLATIONS by ComEd for trespassing, excavating, digging without notice, digging in

non-easement areas of the property, at $5000 per violation as allowed under ICC statutes and

Regulatory Code violations.

“ Every person who, while engaging in excavation or demolition, willfully fails to comply

with the Act by failing to provide the notice to the owners or operators of the underground

facilities near the excavation or demolition area as required by Section 4 or 6 of this Act shall

be subject to a penalty of up to $5,000 for each separate offense and shall be liable for the

damage caused to the owners or operators of the facility”.

16. Penalty under 220 ILCS 5/8-505.1 (a)(2)

“Every person who fails to provide notice and willfully fails to comply with other provisions

of this Act shall be subject to additional penalties of up to $2,500 for each separate

5

offense and shall be liable for the damage caused to the owners or operators of the

facility”.

17. Respondent was repeatedly notified that they are required to notify Petitioner by certified

mail, U.S Mail before commencing any utility work and warned that such Notice must be at

least 21 days in advance pursuant to 220 ILCS 5/8-505.1 (a)(2) which states “ an electric

public utility shall Provide direct notice of vegetation management activities no less than 21

days nor more than 90 days before the activities begin”. “Vegetation management activities

by an electric public utility shall not alter, trespass upon, or limit the rights of any

property owner”. (Source: P.A. 97-333, eff. 8-12-11.)

18. In deliberate , willful non-compliance of the above Act , on July 3, 2019 , respondent

ComEd trespassed the property , indulged in Class X Felony Home invasion, and excavated

in multiple places. ComEd further violated the ICC Regulations concerning the pre-requisites

before digging, and no flags planted by JULIE or Intren a/k/a “Trench it” before

commencing any digging, besides no notice. Such trespassing and criminal destruction of

property and damages done on non-easement areas of the property as well.

19. The outrageous arrogance, egregious , outlandish and vicious acts of ComEd masterminded

by a venomous crook named Bradley Perkins is punishable under this Act. Especially so, in

spite of the fact this crook Perkins was informed in the past that Petitioner house listed for

sale and open houses scheduled and any alleged “fault repair” must be noticed 21 days in

advance.

20. The “open house” days following Fourth of July had to be canceled due to the uninformed

and unnoticed excavation on July 3, 2019 which destroyed the curb appeal of the house

6

totally and the landscape was catastrophically massacred by the ComEd thugs, as the

pictures speaks thousands of words.

21. Besides trespassing , including digging in non-easement areas of the property , ComEd

illegally drove with heavy duty trucks inside the lawn , which destroyed and flattened every

bit of grass from the heavy terrain vehicle .The heat generated form the engine burned the

grass to become black in color as shown in pictures and patches of brown /sand colored grass

as shown in the pictures..

22. Petitioner house became unsaleable and became “non-ready” for showing to prospective

buyers, due to ComEd intentional tort acts and tortious interference in petitioner’s efforts to

sell his property.

23. Punitive damages are sought as allowed under the Act : Penalty under 220 ILCS 5/8-505.1

(a)(2)

Wherefore, Petitioner seeks punitive damage in excess of an amount of $ 150,000 entered against

Respondent , ( computed normally as three to five times of the actual damages of $ 38000).

III. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

24. On July 3, 2019 , Petitioner was home for the long fourth of July week end with his family.

25. Petitioner told the ComEd service fellow who appeared unnoticed and uninformed at the

property that he had told ComEd counsel Bradley Perkins that ComEd was to give adequate

notice of at least 21 days per the statute 220 ILCS 5/8-505.1 (a)(2) and asked the utility

fellow to call Perkins.

26. Instead , the venomous crook and felon Bradley Perkins had called ComEd outside security

“Monterrey Security” and dispatched a “piggy thug with a hippo physique” who appeared

at the property with his gun showing out. This pig from Monterrey Security is not an

7

authorized law enforcement officer or cop and showing and flashing the gun out is a

criminal violation of the “ concealed carry weapon” laws. Illinois do not have “open carry

gun laws” . This thug criminally trespassed and stayed inside the property lines all day on

July 3, 2019 and aided, harbored, assisted ComEd felons to indulge in multiple property

damages, criminal trespassing.

27. Petitioner , a consumer, civilian, family man, was not flashing a “ sledge hammer” or pointing

a “gun” ( sarcastically and figuratively speaking” ) for respondent ComEd who through a felon

Bradley Perkins to dispatch an armed security who was flashing his gun as a show of “stretching

the muscle” , intimidating , harassing and threatening the Consumer - the Petitioner 1 .

28. The thug from Monterrey Security and the ComEd crook Perkins who dispatched that thug

are both under FBI investigations and Petitioner is seeking a Federal indictment on Bradley

Perkins and the “John Doe” thug form Monterrey security and is in contact with U.S

Attorney.

_____________________ 1Since this incident Petitioner has alerted his Corporate security to be physically stationed

in his property and if any thugs from ComEd ever showed up near the property , instructed

his security to use whatever the force required as allowed under the law to protect the

household and the property under Illinois Castle Doctrine.

CASTLE DOCTRINE: Illinois is a Castle Doctrine state “ You are under no legal duty to

retreat if threatened, and using deadly force is justified. Furthermore, the law prevents

claims being filed against any person defending his or her house”.

Use of force in defense of dwelling-720 ILCS 5/7-2 : A person is justified in the use of force

against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is

necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or to prevent the

commission of a felony near the dwelling.

720 ILCS 5/7-1 Statutes Use of force in defense of person: A person can use deadly force if

he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend himself/herself or

another, against an individual's imminent use of unlawful force, to prevent a felony from

being committed.

8

29. On July 3, 2019 the ComEd “utility felons” sent by the chieftain thug Perkins were digging

in multiple places, digging 10 feet deep hole and 3 feet diameter and piled up the tons of

soil like a mountain in the landscape as shown in the pictures ; left the holes unplugged

with the soil they dug out and this caused endangerment to the household.

30. In addition to violations stated in this preceding paragraphs , ComEd also violated the

Laws, Public Act , Statutes ,Rules and ICC Regulatory Acts and indulged in engendering the

petitioner’s other utilities like gas lines, water lines, telephone and cable liens, by not

complying that property areas to be excavated marked and flagged by JULIE days in

advance , before any digging.

31. There were no flag markings. ComEd crooks had no clue where the alleged fault was and

randomly dug in multiple places as a wild goose chase and created fault by damaging the

cables , as there were no “flags posted” or marked by JULIE to forewarn the areas for

ComEd not allowed to excavate or dig.

32. In fact there was no fault diagnosed / existed in Petitioner’s property and the alleged repair

to have been done was a sham, fake, fraud, bogus and “made-up”. The fault was several

houses down in the cul-de-sac, which they figured out at the end of the day.

Wherefore, for the outrageous abuses, extreme defamatory and violently offensive conduct

and criminal behavior of threatening a consumer with a gun to conduct an illegal excavation,

ComEd must be severely fined , penalized for an amount of $ 500,000 as exemplary damages

awarded in favor of the petitioner and against ComEd and a sum of FIVE Million dollars

entered against ComEd and in favor of Illinois Commerce Commission as a fine and

penalty .This will send a strong signal for the ComEd white collar criminal crooks at the top ,

that they cannot get away with these type of abuses of consumers using their political clout with

9

Speaker Madigan and to deter from ever attempting again the type of outrageous conduct to

any other consumers anywhere in Illinois or elsewhere.2

Legal Standard and Argument

“Summary judgment is proper if the indisputable evidence and indisputable facts show that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986);

There are no disputable facts as to the claims made in the Petitioner’s complaint and in fact

respondent ComEd had tacitly admitted the wrong doings in its August 9, 2019. Summary

Judgment is well qualified and warranted .

A motion for summary judgment is limited to the pleadings. Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial

Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 227 (2010). In ruling on the motion, a court will consider only those

facts apparent from the face of the pleadings, matters subject to judicial notice, and judicial

admissions in the record. All well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences therefrom are taken as

true. Gillen, 215 Ill. 2d at 385; H&M Commercial Driver Leasing, Inc. v. Fox Valley

Containers, Inc., 209 Ill. 2d 52, 56-57 (2004). Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the

pleadings disclose no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. Lebron, 237 Ill. 2d at 227; Gillen, 215 Ill. 2d at 385.

_______________________________

2 Attached as Exhibit B as to “insane” salaries and compensation enjoyed at consumers expenses by the Exelon and ComEd employees. This “grand larceny” of public and consumer

monies is also swindled from exorbitant “service fee” even for Debit card payments , which

is as good as cash payment of bills, thus swindling over 36 million dollars of Illinois Utility

consumers just in debit card service fees alone . The white collar criminal crooks Anne

Pramaggiorre and Christopher Crane are in delusion that they could get away with this public

fraud and abuses as long as they have a friend in Springfield . That will change from the FBI

investigation initiated against ComEd.

10

The court will enter summary judgment against a party who does not “come forward with

evidence that would reasonably permit the finder of fact to find in [its] favor on a material

question.” Modrowski v. Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166, 1167 (7th Cir. 2013). The August 9, 2019

letter from ComEd is an admittance of the wrongdoing, the proximate result of which caused

property damages and other legitimate punitive damages as allowed under the ICC Acts as

articulated, argued in the this entire Motion.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE , from the indisputable facts, supporting evidentiary pictures , standing of law

and supporting case laws it is clear and convincing that there are no disputable facts and

ComEd has no defense/response. In the interest of simple justice, matter of simple fairness ,

laws and the governing statutes , this motion should be granted, an order for Summary

Judgment entered as a matter of law.

Petitioner respectfully requests this Administrative Tribunal to grant this Motion for Summary

Judgment in his favor award all the compensatory , Punitive and Exemplary damages sought in

this Motion and for any other relief this Honorable Tribunal deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

September 24,2019 By: /s/ Roger Shekar `

Petitioner


President & CEO


950 Plum Grove

P.O,Box 681085


11

STATE OF ILLINOIS


Roger Shekar , )

Petitioner, )

v. )

) 19-0863


)

Respondent. )

__________________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE OF MOTIONS

To: Veronica Gomez , Corporate Counsel for ComEd [email protected];

Mark Goldstein, 300 Anthony Ave; apartment no: 313 , Mundelein , Il 60060

Take notice that on October 1, 2019, at 11 A.M , I will appear telephonically before ALJ

Mr. Dolan and present the attached Motion for Summary Judgement for a hearing.

By: /s/ Roger Shekar

Petitioner

Courtesy copies sent to: John Lausch , U.S Attorney

Jeffrey Sallet, Special Agent-in-Charge , FBI

Mr. Dolan, Administrative Law Judge , Illinois Commerce Commission

Carrie Zalewski, Chairperson, Illinois Commerce Commission

Governor Pritzker via Anne Caprara , Chief of Staff E mail


EXHIBIT A

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

COUNTY DEPARTMENT , LAW DIVISION

1 of 32

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Roger Shekar , ) 2019-L-0XXXX Plaintiff , )

) INTENTIONAL TORT, DEFAMATION

) PROPERTY DAMAGES ) DAMAGES CLAIMED:

Joseph Dominguez, Christopher Crane, ) TWETY MILLION DOLLAR

Bradley Perkins, Rob Tullman , )

Anne Pramaggiore,Kirk Doty, ) PUNTIVE DAMAGES Matthew Turk, ) 100 MILLION DOLLARS

Juan Gaytan, Shane Doyle, )

Lance Rosenmayer, Loretta Rosenmayer, ) Kelly Tomblin,Richard Ryman , )

William Nightingale, Dan Bednarski, ) TWELVE PERSON JURY DEMAND

Monterrey Security Consultants Inc; ) John Does 1 to 11 of ComEd & Intren, )

John Doe 12 of Monterrey, )

Common Wealth Edison Company , )

Exelon Corporation, ) USIC LLC, )

Intren Holdings, LLC, )

Defendants. ) ______________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT AT LAW

Plaintiff Roger Shekar, through his attorneys sue the defendants Dominguez, Crane, Perkins, Tullman ,

Pramaggiore , Doty, Turk, Gaytan, Doyle, ,Tomblin, Ryman, Nightingale, Bednarski ,Loretta and Lance

Rosenmayer, John Does 1-11 ; John Doe 12; Exelon Corporation, Common Wealth Edison company,

Monterrey Security Consultants Inc., USIC LLC, Intern Holdings ,LLC (hereinafter “defendants’) -suing

for compensatory damages on TWENTY SIX counts- for Defamation, Pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/32–13 ;

740 ILCS 145 ; Property Damages; Intentional Tort acts ; Vandalism; Trespassing; Violation of 220

ILCS 5/8-505.1(a)(1) (West 2010), Section 8-505.1(a)(2) [requiring ComEd direct notice of no less

than 21 days before any alleged repair work] ; and specifies the accompanying information that must be

provided to customers and property owners pursuant to 220 ILCS 5/8-505.1(a)(2) (West 2010); violation

of section 8-505.1 of the Public Utilities Act ,(Damages to vegetation, lawn et- Sheffler v.

Commonwealth Edison Co., 2011 IL 110166, Ill.Sup.Ct.) ; violation of Easement ; Devaluation of the

property as proximate cause and the damages; unauthorized removal of vegetation ; punitive damages.

EXHIBIT B

Christopher Crane, the president and

CEO of Exelon Corporation a company

based in Chicago. He made an estimated

$15 million per year.

Anne R. Pramaggiore As Executive Vice

President at COMMONWEALTH EDISON

COMPANY made $1,300,117 in

compensation.

state of illinois illinois commerce commission...roger shekar -vs- commonwealth edison company...

Documents