Preliminary Injunction Granted in Scheffke v. Schulz et al., No. 2026CH04709
This morning, June 17, 2026, Cook County Chancery Judge Eve M. Reilly granted a preliminary injunction in favor of our client, Mary Catherine Scheffke, the founder of Chicago French Bulldog Rescue, Inc., NFP.
The Court's order preserves Mary's employment, her home on the rescue's property, and her position as director, at least for the time being, until the legal issues in this case are resolved. The Court has ordered that Mary's full access to all rescue funds, including funds necessary for Tulip's surgery be restored, and has restored her as a co-signatory on the rescue's checking account.
The Court has further ordered that Mary is to make all medical decisions for the French Bulldogs currently in her care.
One of those dogs is Tulip, a five-year-old French Bulldog with biopsy-confirmed thyroid cancer. The Court noted that no one disputes that Tulip will not survive without surgery. The Board had cancelled Tulip's surgery on June 10, the night before it was scheduled to take place on June 11. The surgery had been recommended by three veterinary professionals, including Tulip's treating veterinarian, a board-certified surgeon, and a radiologist-oncologist. The Court noted that the Defendants acknowledged at the hearing that the rescue has at least $100,000 in funds, far exceeding the cost of Tulip's surgery.
Mary is now authorized to proceed with scheduling Tulip's surgery immediately.
We are grateful to Hon. Judge Reilly for her careful and thorough consideration of this matter. The litigation continues, but at least today the dogs are safe, and now Tulip has a chance to live!
Scheffke-v-Schulz-Preliminary-Injunction-Order-June-17-2026.pdf
De Silva Law Offices, LLC, with co-counsel Jonathan Lubin, Law Office of Jonathan Lubin.
Update June 19, 2026
Today the board of Chicago French Bulldog Rescue sent a message to its volunteers about what happened in court on June 17. The message tells two stories that are not true. The first is that the board won. The second, which the board has repeated for weeks, is that Mary Scheffke started this lawsuit, and that her lawsuit is why donated money is going to lawyers. Both stories collapse against the record. Start with the second one, because the dates tell it for you.
The Timeline the Board Left Out
Who started this, and when the money started leaving:
The board began spending the rescue's money on lawyers to remove Mary before any lawsuit existed. Here is the order in which things actually happened.
Late April 2026. Two board members send Mary profanity-laced text messages. Around the same time, the board pays its law firm about $5,000. There is no lawsuit. There is no court case. There is no demand for Mary to answer anything. There is only a decision to spend donated money to remove the founder.
May 1, 2026. The law firm sends a letter announcing an "investigation" into Mary's compensation, housing, and role. The board acts before the investigation is ever finished.
May 7, 2026. The board votes to strip Mary of the presidency, installs a new president, and sets a vote for May 27 to remove her as a director.
May 11, 2026. The board cuts off Mary's debit card, the card she uses to buy food and medicine for four medically fragile dogs. The same day, the board confirms the May 27 vote to remove her.
May 14, 2026. The board and its newly installed president authorize another payment to the law firm, again about $5,000. By the board's own earlier accounting, the legal fees now sit around $10,000. Every dollar of it has been spent before Mary has filed anything anywhere.
May 15, 2026. Only now does Mary go to court. She files for a temporary restraining order to stop the removal vote and to restore her access to the funds the dogs depend on. This is the first time anyone files anything in any court.
Read that order again. By the time Mary filed, the board had already sent the texts, paid the firm, opened its "investigation," removed her as president, cut off the dogs' debit card, scheduled her removal, and paid the firm a second time. Mary did not start this. She answered it. The board decided to spend donor money on a removal campaign weeks before a single page was filed in court. The lawsuit the board now blames for its legal bills is the lawsuit Mary was forced to file to stop what the board had already put in motion.
A board that did not want to spend money on lawyers had the same option at every step: stop, talk, mediate. The board chose litigation paid for with donations instead, and it made that choice first.
What the court actually ruled on June 17
The board's message points to one thing: the court denied the rule to show cause. What it omits: Judge Reilly granted the preliminary injunction in Mary's favor in full. Mary keeps her employment, her home, and her position as director. The court ordered full restoration of her co-signatory status and access to all rescue funds. The court confirmed that Mary makes all medical decisions for the dogs in her care. The court noted that no one disputes Tulip will not survive without surgery, and ordered that her surgery proceed.
As for the rule to show cause, Judge Reilly denied it on the narrow ground that the original TRO language did not explicitly require co-signatory status or viewing access to financial records. The preliminary injunction entered June 17 corrects that directly. It now explicitly requires both. The board's message describes all of this as the court ruling in their favor. The order speaks for itself.
The property is a reason, not a justification
The board wants to sell the rescue's property. That is part of why it wants Mary out, and it is not irrelevant to this case. But it is no justification for what the board has done. What to do with the property, whether to sell it, put the proceeds toward caring for dogs in need, and rent a facility for the rescue's most medically vulnerable animals, is a governance decision. Any impartial board can make it through honest deliberation. It does not require throwing the founder out of her home, ending her employment, freezing her bank access, and cancelling a cancer surgery the night before the operation. It took a court order to stop those things. The property question can wait for a board acting solely in the rescue's interest.
Where the money goes
People give to this rescue to save and treat French Bulldogs. That money is not a litigation fund. In open court, the board acknowledged that the rescue holds at least $100,000. Its own earlier messages put the legal fees at about $10,000, and that was weeks ago, before a contested injunction hearing, an emergency motion, a rule to show cause, and a stretch of non-compliance with a court order. Those fees have almost certainly grown, and they will keep growing with every filing, every hearing, and every day the board does not comply. Every dollar the board's law firm bills is a dollar that someone gave to help dogs. It is paying for a campaign to remove the founder.
The court order is here: https://www.desilvalawoffices.com/articles/blog/2026/june/court-grants-preliminary-injunction-for-chicago-/
R Tamara de Silva, De Silva Law Offices, LLC, counsel for Mary Catherine Scheffke