Local Government Law

Nichols v. Ill. Dept. of Transportation

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Attorney Fees
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 19-1456
Decision Date: 
July 6, 2021
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in awarding plaintiff’s counsel $774,584.50 in attorney's fees, which represented decrease from $1,709,345 request in attorney’s fees that counsel claimed in fee petition submitted on behalf of plaintiff, who was prevailing party in Title VII discrimination claim. Dist. Ct. could properly establish reasonable hourly rate at $360 per hour instead of counsel’s requested $550 per hour in fee petition, even though counsel submitted six affidavits in support of his requested fee. Three affiants did not state their own hourly rate and made only conclusory statements to support fee request. Moreover, other three affiants either did not specially address requested rate, provided only general statements or did not list judicially approved or client-paid rates for work in similar employment discrimination cases. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly look to $360 per hour rate given to plaintiff’s counsel by another court in prior case. Too, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award counsel fees for time spent traveling to courthouse for routine hearings, where counsel failed to show that he billed other clients for travel time to such hearings, and where Dist. Ct. allowed parties to appear by telephone in order to avoid unnecessary expense to clients. Dist. Ct. also did not err in rejecting counsel’s request for upward adjustment based on plaintiff’s minority group status, where Dist. Ct. could properly note that successful Title VII plaintiffs are often members of minority groups.

Senate Bill 539

Topic: 
Ethics reform

(Gillespie, D-Arlington Heights; Burke, D-Oak Lawn) requires persons who lobby officials of counties, municipalities, and townships to register with the secretary state and submit expenditure disclosures in the same manner as lobbyists at the State House must do. Makes other changes for ethics at the State House. Passed both chambers. Effective Jan. 1, 2022.

Senate Bill 642

Topic: 
Judicial Districts Act of 2021

(Harmon, D-Oak Park; Tarver, D-Chicago creates the Judicial Districts Act of 2021 to create new appellate and supreme court districts outside of Cook County. The judicial circuits are left intact but may be moved to a new judicial district. The appellate courthouses remain where they currently sit to continue to act as the appellate courthouse for that district.  

Senate Bill 642

Topic: 
Judicial Districts Act of 2021

(Harmon, D-Oak Park; Tarver, D-Chicago creates the Judicial Districts Act of 2021 to create new appellate and supreme court districts outside of Cook County. The judicial circuits are left intact but may be moved to a new judicial district. The appellate courthouses remain where they currently sit to continue to act as the appellate courthouse for that district.  

Rivera v. Bank of New York Mellon

Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Ordinances
Citation
Case Number: 
2021 IL App (1st) 192188
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 30, 2021
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
CUNNINGHAM

Tenant filed suit alleging that Defendants failed to comply with Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance (KCRO) after purchasing the property at a judicial sale. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to offer her either relocation assistance or an extension of her lease agreement, as KRCO required. After trial, court found in Plaintiff's favor but awarded her $16,500 less in damages than she was seeking. The valid relocation fee in KCRO is inseparable from the invalid rent limitations in KCRO; the invalid portion of KCRO is not severable from the remainder of the ordinance. Rent control is an integral underpinning of KCRO. The KCRO is wholly preempted by the Illinois Rent Control Preemption Act. Court erred in denying Defendants' motion to dismiss on that basis. (DELORT and HOFFMAN, concurring.)

Souza v. City of West Chicago

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Ordinances
Citation
Case Number: 
2021 IL App (2d) 200047
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 9, 2021
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Du Page Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN

Court correctly determined that City's home rule authority permits it to exempt itself, via an amended ordinance passed after Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed, from statutory requirements as to water-utility billing. City's ordinance may be applied retroactively, as expressly stated in ordinance. There is no right to complimentary water usage under the Municipal Code, and consumers do not have a right to timely water billing.Plaintiffs could not have held a settled expectation as to any substantial interest such that retroactive application of ordinance is improper. Court properly granted Defendants' section 2-619 motion to dismiss, as Plaintiffs were not 3rd-party beneficiaries to the contract between Defendants and thus had no standing to pursue those claims. The contract does not clearly intend to directly benefit Plaintiffs. (HUTCHINSON and BIRKETT, concurring.) 

Strauss v. City of Chicago

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Ordinances
Citation
Case Number: 
2021 IL App (1st) 191977
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 5, 2021
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CONNORS

Plaintiff owned and operated a building on North Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago in which Double Door Liquors, a music venue, had been a tenant. After it was evicted, a zoning ordinance was enacted that changed the types of businesses allowed in the building. Plaintiffs challenged the ordinance and certain acts done by the local alderman and the City before ordinance was enacted, alleging these were done to punish Plaintiff for having evicted Double Door. The secondary effects of having a concert venue at the location (noise, drug use property damage by patrons, etc.) provided a rational basis to downzone the property via this ordinance, and thus Plaintiff's substantive due process claim and equal protection claim were property dismissed. Plaintiff alleged mere fluctuations in value from the rezoning, which did not so burden his property and were not so severe an economic impact as to constitute a taking.  City met its burden of proving that it si immune under sections 2-201 and 2-109 of Tort Immunity Act, and thus Plaintiff's tort claims were properly dismissed. (HARRIS and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring.)

McHenry Township v. County of McHenry

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Election Code
Citation
Case Number: 
2021 IL App (2d) 200478
Decision Date: 
Thursday, April 15, 2021
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
McHenry Co.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
JORGENSEN

Township's board of trustees approved a resolution to dissolve the township and submitted to County Clerk a proposition that conformed to form in section 24-30(a) of Election Code: to place this referendum proposition on the township's November 2020 general election ballot. County Clerk, who is a ministerial officer, lacked the authority to look beyond the face of the filings (the March 2020 primary ballot question), in determining that this proposition was prohibited because it was identical to that ballot question. This is not a ministerial task, as it constitutes an assessment of the content of the filings.(ZENOFF and BRENNAN, concurring.)

City of Bloomington v. Raoul

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Open Meetings Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2021 IL App (4th) 190539
Decision Date: 
Monday, April 26, 2021
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Sangamon Co.
Holding: 
Reversed.
Justice: 
CAVANAGH

City Council held a closed session, citing the litigation exception ot the Open Meetings Act, to discuss termination of an agreement with Town of Normal. State's Attorney filed request for review with Illinois Attorney General (AG), questioning City Council's use of the litigation exception.  AG opined that City Council violated the Act by engaging in discussion not focused on litigation but on other matters. Circuit court reversed AG's binding determination. The AG's determination that City Council improperly invoked litigation exception, as litigation was not probable or imminent pursuant to section 2(c)(11) of the Act. Even if City Council lawfully closed the meeting, City Council violated the Act by failing to abide by the conditions that confined their discussion to probable or imminent litigation. (HOLDER WHITE and STEIGMANN, concurring.)

Scrementi v. Wilcox

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Elections
Citation
Case Number: 
2021 IL App (1st) 210238
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 25, 2021
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 4th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GORDON

Plaintiffs challenged the requirement that any person seeking the Democratic nomination must present a full slate of candidates for each open office. After rules for nominations were announced, at a caucus meeting of Township Democratic Central Committee, one elector announced the nominations of her slate of candidates. Plaintiffs claimed that the refusal to consider different candidates who another elector attempted to nominate violated the first amendment. Court properly found that Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge constitutionality of section 45-50(b)(6) of Township Code because their alleged injury was not the direct result of the enforcement of the statute. (ELLIS and MARTIN, concurring.)