Local Government Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state valid cause of action plaintiffs’ class action alleging that defendant-City violated their due process rights by issuing notices of red-light camera violations that failed to cite specific reference to section of municipal code that plaintiff had allegedly violated and by not including challenge to notice’s validity as available defense to instant code violation. Defendant provided plaintiff with adequate due process, where permitted defenses in code allowed plaintiffs to refute or alleviate their culpability, while plaintiffs’ desired notice defense had no bearing on plaintiffs’ culpability. Ct. rejected plaintiffs’ claim that notices were void ab initio due to failure to cite specific code violation, since any requirement for specific reference to code violation was merely directory, as opposed to mandatory. Moreover, plaintiffs had ample information to generate defense, where notices had multiple pictures of plaintiffs’ registered vehicle, along with time, date and location of violation.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-Village’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action, alleging that Village’s ordinance that banned issuance of new permits to build new billboards violated its First Amendment, equal protection and due process rights, where plaintiff had leased land with intention to build new billboard. Plaintiff lost its lease during pendency of case, and thus its request for injunctive relief from sign ban became moot. Also, plaintiff’s request for money relief arising out of sign ban was time-barred, where applicable limitations period was two years, and plaintiff waited four years from enactment of instant ordinance to file instant lawsuit. Also, plaintiff could not establish viable equal protection action, even though Village accepted competitor’s bid to lease property that could have new billboard erected, since plaintiff was not similarly-situated to competitor, where competitor offered lump sum payment of $800,000 for said lease, while plaintiff offered $1.1 million in installments payments over 40-year period.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-Village and Village Mayor’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-former police chief’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff’s due process rights by terminating him as police chief without due process of law. Parties agreed that plaintiff had protected property interest in his continued employment, and that although there was ample opportunity for hearing prior to his termination, plaintiff received no notice of charges or hearing prior to his termination. As such, plaintiff stated valid due process claim under section 1983, where Village acted through Mayor and other high ranking officials with policy-making authority to effectuate plaintiff’s termination. Ct. rejected Dist. Ct.’s determination that plaintiff was not entitled to section 1983 relief, even though Dist. Ct. found that: (1) instant termination was “random unauthorized state” act that affected plaintiff‘s federal and state due process rights; and (2) plaintiff had available state-court post-deprivation procedure to remedy his loss. It further held that: (1) public employee’s decision to violate both state and federal procedural requirements was insufficient grounds to excuse instant federal due process liability; and (2) in cases alleging due process violations by municipal policymakers, there is no need to inquire into whether municipal employee’s actions were “random and unauthorized.” (Dissent filed.)