Just 3 questions based on the short reading. Thanks!

Case Analysis 40.5 Zissu v. IH2 Property Illinois, L.P. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, F.Supp.3d _, 2016 WL 212937 (2016). In the Language of the Court John Z. LEE, United States District Judge constituted] negligence [and a construc- tive) bailment. jewelry, furniture, and personal docu- ments, was then either stolen or damaged. Plaintiffs Pavel Zissu and Aise Zissu bring suit [in this federal district court] against the owner of the property where they resided, IH2 Property Illi- nois, L.P. The Zissus claim that after a Cook County (Illinois] Sheriff turned over possession of the premises to IH2 pursuant to an eviction order, the company removed all of their personal property from the premises and put it outside. In their complaint, the Zis- sus assert (that the company's actions FACTUAL BACKGROUND *** The Zissus resided at a property in the City of Chicago owned by IH2. *** [An Illinois state court judge) issued an order for possession, allowing IH2 to evict the Zissus. The order was executed by a Cook County Sheriff. Once IH2 was given possession of the premises, its agents took all of the Zissus' personal property that was in the apartment and placed it outside on the curb. The property, which included *** must LEGAL STANDARD A motion [to dismiss under the Fed- eral Rules of Procedure) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. A complaint * allege suf- ficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. For a claim to have facial plausibility, a plaintiff must plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable Case 48.3 Continued inference that the defendant is liable for representatives of the condo association who under contract either express or the misconduct alleged. [Emphasis added.] had been present and had observed the implied has agreed to accept delivery and eviction and removal of the property was deal with the property in a particular way. ANALYSIS not enough to establish a duty of care. To recover under a bailment theory, the This is a diversity suit. As such, we *** An Illinois appellate court plaintiff must allege: (1) an express or apply state substantive law and federal applied a similar analytical framework implied agreement to create a bailment, procedural law. Both parties cite Illinois in Dargis v. Paradise Park, Inc., 354 III. (2) delivery of the property, (3) the law in their briefing, so the Court will App.3d 171, 819 N.E.2d 1220 (2004). bailee's acceptance of the property, and apply Illinois law. There, the court concluded that, while (4) the bailee's failure to return the prop- a landlord has no duty in such situa- erty or the bailee's delivery of the prop- I. Negligence tions as a general matter, an exception erty in a damaged condition. [Emphasis The Zissus allege that IH2 negli- is created when the landlord chooses to added.] gently removed their personal property care for the property. *** This decision An implied bailment-also called a from the premises following the evic- is helpful because state appellate court constructive bailment-may be found tion, causing much of it to be damaged decisions, although not binding, consti- where the property of one person is vol- or stolen. *** In its motion to dismiss, tute persuasive authority. untarily received by another for some IH2 argues that the Zissus cannot state a In the end, the Court agrees with the purpose other than that of obtaining claim for negligence because IH2, as the reasoning in these cases and finds that ownership. The implied bailment may landlord, did not owe a duty to protect the Illinois Supreme Court would hold be deduced from the circumstances personal property left on the premises that, although a landlord does not have a surrounding the transaction, includ- following the eviction. general duty under common law to care ing the benefits received by the parties, for the personal property of a former their intentions, the kind of property Because the statutes of Illinois are tenant after a proper and legal eviction, involved, and the opportunities of silent on this issue and the Illinois a duty of care does arise when a landlord each to exercise control over the Supreme Court has not addressed this acts as an actual or constructive bailee property. issue, this Court must attempt to divine with respect to the tenant's property. [If] The Zissus contend that, by actively (guess] how the [Illinois] Supreme Court the complaint states a claim for bailment removing the property from the prem- would rule. In fact, only two courts have as further discussed below, the Court ises and putting it on the street, IH2 addressed the question of a landlord's duty finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently assumed control over the property. under Illinois law. [In] Centagon, Inc. v. alleged the existence of a duty and a Unlike in Centagon, in which the defen- Board of Directors of 1212 Lake Shore Drive breach of that duty to survive a motion dants had watched the sheriff take out Condominium Association, F.Supp.2d to dismiss as to their negligence claim. the property, IH2 itself took possession _, 2001 WL 1491523 (N.D.Ill. 2001), of the property and put it outside. a condo association had obtained a judg. II. Bailment *** It was IH2's alleged actions after ment granting exclusive possession of a *** The Zissus allege that a con- the sheriff had turned over possession unit that had belonged to the plaintiff. structive (or implied) bailment was of the premises to IH2 that gave rise The sheriff's office executed the eviction created when IH2 took control over to the bailment relationship. *** The and *** removed the personal property the personal property that had been left allegations are sufficient (to establish this onto the curb and sidewalk. behind. In its motion to dismiss, IH2 claim) at the pleading stage. *** The court held that the facts in argues that the Zissus have failed to state that case were insufficient to impose an a claim because IH2 never took posses- affirmative duty upon defendants to care sion of the personal property. CONCLUSION for any personal property left in the Unit A bailment occurs when goods, or other For the reasons stated herein, the after eviction. The mere fact that the personal property, are delivered to another, Court denies IH2's motion to dismiss. Legal Reasoning Questions 1. How did related cases addressing the issue of a landlord's duty under Illinois law affect the court's reasoning in this case? 2. Besides negligence, are there other tort claims that the Zissus might have successfully alleged in their complaint? Discuss. 3. Suppose that instead of putting the Zissus' personal property outside, IH2 had taken it to a storage facility. Would the result have been different? Case Analysis 40.5 Zissu v. IH2 Property Illinois, L.P. United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, F.Supp.3d _, 2016 WL 212937 (2016). In the Language of the Court John Z. LEE, United States District Judge constituted] negligence [and a construc- tive) bailment. jewelry, furniture, and personal docu- ments, was then either stolen or damaged. Plaintiffs Pavel Zissu and Aise Zissu bring suit [in this federal district court] against the owner of the property where they resided, IH2 Property Illi- nois, L.P. The Zissus claim that after a Cook County (Illinois] Sheriff turned over possession of the premises to IH2 pursuant to an eviction order, the company removed all of their personal property from the premises and put it outside. In their complaint, the Zis- sus assert (that the company's actions FACTUAL BACKGROUND *** The Zissus resided at a property in the City of Chicago owned by IH2. *** [An Illinois state court judge) issued an order for possession, allowing IH2 to evict the Zissus. The order was executed by a Cook County Sheriff. Once IH2 was given possession of the premises, its agents took all of the Zissus' personal property that was in the apartment and placed it outside on the curb. The property, which included *** must LEGAL STANDARD A motion [to dismiss under the Fed- eral Rules of Procedure) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. A complaint * allege suf- ficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. For a claim to have facial plausibility, a plaintiff must plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable Case 48.3 Continued inference that the defendant is liable for representatives of the condo association who under contract either express or the misconduct alleged. [Emphasis added.] had been present and had observed the implied has agreed to accept delivery and eviction and removal of the property was deal with the property in a particular way. ANALYSIS not enough to establish a duty of care. To recover under a bailment theory, the This is a diversity suit. As such, we *** An Illinois appellate court plaintiff must allege: (1) an express or apply state substantive law and federal applied a similar analytical framework implied agreement to create a bailment, procedural law. Both parties cite Illinois in Dargis v. Paradise Park, Inc., 354 III. (2) delivery of the property, (3) the law in their briefing, so the Court will App.3d 171, 819 N.E.2d 1220 (2004). bailee's acceptance of the property, and apply Illinois law. There, the court concluded that, while (4) the bailee's failure to return the prop- a landlord has no duty in such situa- erty or the bailee's delivery of the prop- I. Negligence tions as a general matter, an exception erty in a damaged condition. [Emphasis The Zissus allege that IH2 negli- is created when the landlord chooses to added.] gently removed their personal property care for the property. *** This decision An implied bailment-also called a from the premises following the evic- is helpful because state appellate court constructive bailment-may be found tion, causing much of it to be damaged decisions, although not binding, consti- where the property of one person is vol- or stolen. *** In its motion to dismiss, tute persuasive authority. untarily received by another for some IH2 argues that the Zissus cannot state a In the end, the Court agrees with the purpose other than that of obtaining claim for negligence because IH2, as the reasoning in these cases and finds that ownership. The implied bailment may landlord, did not owe a duty to protect the Illinois Supreme Court would hold be deduced from the circumstances personal property left on the premises that, although a landlord does not have a surrounding the transaction, includ- following the eviction. general duty under common law to care ing the benefits received by the parties, for the personal property of a former their intentions, the kind of property Because the statutes of Illinois are tenant after a proper and legal eviction, involved, and the opportunities of silent on this issue and the Illinois a duty of care does arise when a landlord each to exercise control over the Supreme Court has not addressed this acts as an actual or constructive bailee property. issue, this Court must attempt to divine with respect to the tenant's property. [If] The Zissus contend that, by actively (guess] how the [Illinois] Supreme Court the complaint states a claim for bailment removing the property from the prem- would rule. In fact, only two courts have as further discussed below, the Court ises and putting it on the street, IH2 addressed the question of a landlord's duty finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently assumed control over the property. under Illinois law. [In] Centagon, Inc. v. alleged the existence of a duty and a Unlike in Centagon, in which the defen- Board of Directors of 1212 Lake Shore Drive breach of that duty to survive a motion dants had watched the sheriff take out Condominium Association, F.Supp.2d to dismiss as to their negligence claim. the property, IH2 itself took possession _, 2001 WL 1491523 (N.D.Ill. 2001), of the property and put it outside. a condo association had obtained a judg. II. Bailment *** It was IH2's alleged actions after ment granting exclusive possession of a *** The Zissus allege that a con- the sheriff had turned over possession unit that had belonged to the plaintiff. structive (or implied) bailment was of the premises to IH2 that gave rise The sheriff's office executed the eviction created when IH2 took control over to the bailment relationship. *** The and *** removed the personal property the personal property that had been left allegations are sufficient (to establish this onto the curb and sidewalk. behind. In its motion to dismiss, IH2 claim) at the pleading stage. *** The court held that the facts in argues that the Zissus have failed to state that case were insufficient to impose an a claim because IH2 never took posses- affirmative duty upon defendants to care sion of the personal property. CONCLUSION for any personal property left in the Unit A bailment occurs when goods, or other For the reasons stated herein, the after eviction. The mere fact that the personal property, are delivered to another, Court denies IH2's motion to dismiss. Legal Reasoning Questions 1. How did related cases addressing the issue of a landlord's duty under Illinois law affect the court's reasoning in this case? 2. Besides negligence, are there other tort claims that the Zissus might have successfully alleged in their complaint? Discuss. 3. Suppose that instead of putting the Zissus' personal property outside, IH2 had taken it to a storage facility. Would the result have been different