Local Government Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing on res judicata grounds plaintiffs' lawsuit alleging that defendant-Village violated Equal Protection, Due Process and Takings Clauses by implementing TIF District and otherwise frustrating plaintiffs' efforts to privately sell shopping center, where parties had entered into settlement agreement of prior state-court lawsuit that alleged similar cause of action. Record showed that both causes of action relied on same operative facts and concerned similar allegations that defendant's conduct interfered with plaintiffs' ability to profit from shopping center. Fact that instant lawsuit sought recovery based on additional theories not mentioned in prior lawsuit or that, according to plaintiffs, instant settlement agreement was not properly procured was immaterial.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-County's motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendant violated plaintiff's due process rights, as well as constructively took plaintiff's property without adequate compensation when defendant rescinded commercial zoning designation on portion of plaintiff's property pursuant to state appellate court ruling in lawsuit filed by plaintiff that had requested court to make permanent said commercial designation. Language in existing ordinance made commercial zoning designation valid only for as long as plaintiff owned property, and instant striking of commercial zoning designation was not tantamount to constructive taking of plaintiff's property where plaintiff freely agreed to conditional zoning designation when it was initially given. Moreover, state court's reversion of property to its original agricultural/residential zoning designation did not render property useless for purposes of supporting any takings claim. Fact that plaintiff had alternative administrative remedy in County Code to review zoning designation did not translate into finding that due process given to plaintiff in instant state-court review was inadequate where plaintiff was given full opportunity to rebut defendant's claim that ordinance giving plaintiff conditional zoning designation was invalid in its entirety. (Partial Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants-police officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's 4th Amendments rights when they arrested her during investigation of report that someone was casing neighborhood for possible robberies by taking picture of homes. Dist. Ct. properly concluded that factual dispute existed as to whether defendants held honest belief that plaintiff was engaged in criminal activity where record showed that plaintiff, African-American ComEd employee in predominantly Caucasian neighborhood, was reading meters at time of stop, and where arrest came after plaintiff had explained that she was reading meters on behalf of ComEd and had produced work-related identification. Moreover, defendants could not justify arrest on obstruction of peace officer charge where record showed that plaintiff had merely argued with defendants about her detention.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing without prejudice plaintiff's section 1983 action alleging that defendants-County Bd. of Review and its Bd. members violated plaintiff's equal protection rights by setting plaintiff's property assessment at levels grossly disproportionate to its fair market value. Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiff's claim was premature where plaintiff had not yet exhausted his state-court remedy with respect to his appeal of Bd.'s assessment. Moreover, Dist. Ct. properly found that individual Bd. members were entitled to absolute immunity when making instant assessment.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-City and police officer's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim in section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's 4th Amendment rights when they arrested and detained plaintiff on drug possession charge during time that defendant had been detained on traffic stop. Plaintiff could not maintain instant action where police had probable cause to believe that plaintiff had committed traffic offense, and thus it was irrelevant as to whether police had probable cause to arrest plaintiff on drug possession charge where she could have been arrested on traffic offense. Moreover, plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim was properly dismissed since plaintiff had state-court forum to address her claim. Plaintiff also could not recast malicious prosecution claim as Brady violation where plaintiff was never fully prosecuted on drug possession charge that was eventually dismissed.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff's section 1983 action alleging violations of due process and equal protection rights when defendants-City officials failed to either issue needed permits to repair plaintiff's restaurant, send forms to renew plaintiff's liquor license, or permit portions of plaintiff's restaurant to be open during restaurant's repair when they allowed other restaurants to operate under similar circumstances. Plaintiff failed to show that damages it sustained to its roof were sufficiently similar to damages sustained by proposed comparable restaurants so as to establish class-of-one equal protection claim. Moreover, as to plaintiff's substantive and procedural due process claims, plaintiff failed to adequately plead that it had no adequate state law remedy to address any alleged deprivation of property interests in its restaurant business.