city of chicago motion to dismiss red light case

8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case

1/40

IN THE

CIRCUIT

COURT

OF

OOK

OUNTY, LLINOIS

COUNTY lEPARTMENT, HANCERY IVISION

TERIE

L.

KATA,

t a l .

,

P l a i n t i f f s ,

Case

No.

12 CH 4186

~ ' Hon, i t a Novak

CITY OF

CHICAGO,

C a l e n d a r

9

D e f e n d a n t .

DEFENDANTCITYOF

HICAGO S

MOTION

TO

EXCEED

PAGE

IMIT

Defendant C i t y

of

Chicago

( t h e

C i t y ) ,

t h r o u g h

i t s

a f t o r n e y ,

S t e p h e n

R.

P a t t o n ,

C o r p o r a t i o n

Counsel

o r

t h e C i t y

of

Chicago,

e r e b y

moves

o

e x c e e d

t h e

f i f t e e n

- p a g e

l i m i t

f o r

i d s

Memoran dum

i n

S u p p o r t

of

t s

Combined S e c t i o n 2 - 6 1 9 . 1

Motion t o D i s m i s s

t h e

Second

Amen de d C l a s s

A c t i o n

Complaint

t h e

Complaint

o r

Campl. ) i l e d by

P l a i n t i f f s

T e r i e L.

K a t a ,

Maureen

S u l l i v a n ,

N i c h o l a s C l a r k e , Bohdan

Gernaga,

and N i r a j

R a i n i

( c o l l e c t i v e l y ,

P l a i n t i f f s ) ,

I n

s u p p o r t of

h i s Motion,

h e C i t y

s t a t e s

a s f o l l o w s :

1 .

On

December 22,

2014, l a i n t i f f s

f i l e d t h e i r

Complaint

i n which

t h e y

s e e k

t o

r e p r e s e n t a

c l a s s

of l l

t h o s e

t i c k e t e d u n d e r

t h e

C i t y ' s

a u t o m a t e d

r e d

l i g h t

t i c k e t i n g

o ~ • d i n a n c e

s i n c e

t 1 1 e

s y s t e m ' s

i n c e p t i o n

i n 2003.

P l a i n t i f f s c l a i m

t h e

o r d i n a n c e i s

i n v a l i d

and

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ,

and a t t a c k

t h e

s t a t e s t a t u t e , which

a u t h o r i z e s

such

a u t o m a t e d

r e d

l i g h t

s y s t e m s

i n

e i g h t

s p e c i f i c

c o u n t i e s , a s

v i o l a t i v e of e v e r a l

p r o v i s i o n s

of

h e

I l l i n o i s

C o n s t i t u t i o n .

2 .

Although

t h e

Complaint

c o n t a i n s

o n l y

t h r e e

s e p a r a t e l y- h e a d e d

c o u n t s , i t

i s

4 $

p a g e s

l o n g , i n c l u d e s

o v e r

3 0 0

a r a g r a p h s ,

and

c o n t a i n s

numerous

l a i m s w i t h i n t h e

t h r e e c o u n t s .

S p e c i f i c a l l y ,

P l a i n t i f f s

a l l e g e

t h a t :

(1)

t h e

s t a t e s t a t u t e i s

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

s p e c i a l o r

l o c a l

l e g i s l a t i o n ,

Compl. ~

276-77; 2)

h e s t a t e

s t a t u t e v i o l a t e s t h e u n i f o r m i t y c l a u s e of

h e

I l l i n o i s

C o n s t i t u t i o n ,

i d .

~ i

278; 3 )

1 7 e

s t a t e

s t a t u t e

v i o l a t e s

t h e

e q u a l

p r o t e e ~ i o n

c l a u s e

of

h e

I l l i n o i s


2/40


c y ~ ( 279;

4) 1 1 e o r d i n a n c e i s

i n v a l i d

b e c a u s e

t h e

C i t y

l a c k e d

a u t h o r i t y

t o

enact

t

i n

2003, i d .

¶ 1

267-71;

(5)

h e o r d i n a ~ ~ c e

remains i n v a l i d

b e c a u s e t h e

C i t y f a i l e d

t o

r e - e n a c t i t

a f t e r

2006, d . j

274;

6 ) h e o ~ • d i n a n c e

~ ~ i o l a t e s t h e due

p r o c e s s c l a u s e

of

h e

I l l i n o i s

C o n s t i t u t i o n

by p u n i s h i n g

v e h i c l e o v t m e ~ • s

i n s t e a d

of d r i v e r s ,

i d . ~ (

282; (7)

a ny

t i c k e t i s s u e d under

t h e

o r d i n a n c e f o l l o w i n g a

y e l l o w

l i g h t

w i t h

a

d u r a t i o n of

e s s t h a n

3 . 0

seconds

i s

i ~ l v a l i d , i d . ~

292;

and

(8)

l a i n t i f f s a r e

e n t i t l e d

t o

r e s t i t u t i o n of

l l

m o n e y

p a i d

f o r any

t i c k e t

d e t e r m i n e d t o

be

improper

under

any of

h e

f o r e g o i n g t h e o r i e s ,

a d .

p p .

4 6 - 4 7 .

3 . The C i t y

h a s f i l e d ,

c o n c u n • e n t l y

w i t h

t h i s

motion, a

s e c t i o n

2 - 6 1 9 . 1 motion

t o

d i s m i s s

t h e

Complaint

i n

i t s

e n t i r e t y ( t h e

C i t y ' s

Motion o r

Motion ).

I n

a d d i t i o n t o

a d d r e s s i n g

a l l

of

l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s , t l 7 e C i t y ' s

Motion a l s o

s e e k s t o

d i s m i s s

P l a i n t i f f s '

c l a i m s

b a s e d on

r e s u d i c c r t a ,

t h e

s t a t u t e

of i m i t a t i o n s ,

and t h e

v o l u n t a r y

p a y m e n t

d o c t r i n e .

4 .

This

C o u r t ' s

s t a n d i n g o r d e r l i m i t s

m e m o r a n d a

i n

s u p p o r t

of

motions t o f i f t e e n

pages

w i t h o u t l e a v e

of

o u r t .

5 .

Because P l a i n t i f f s '

C o m p l a i n t . r a i s e s

s e v e r a l

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

c l a i m s , and t h e C i t y

r a i s e s

s e v e r a l

d e f e n s e s a s b a s e s

t o d i s m i s s ,

t h e

C i t y

s e e k s

l e a v e

t o f i l e

a m e m o r a ndum~i n

s u p p o r t

of

i t s Motion t o

D i s m i s s

of

t w e n t y - n i n e

(29)

p a g e s .

A

copy

of t h e

C i t y ' s

proposed

m e m o r a n d u m ,

i t h o u t

e x h i b i t s ,

i s a t t a c h e d

h e r e t o a s

E x h i b i t . A.

This

a d d i t i o n a l

s p a c e i s

c r i t i c a l

t o t h e

C i t y ' s

a r gum e n t

and

f o r

t h e C o u r t ' s

f u l l u n d e r s t a n d i n g

of t h e

i s s u e s r a i s e d

i n

t h e

Complaint,

which

s e e k s t o i n ~ r a l i d a t e

t h e C i t y ' s

e n t i r e r e d l i g h t

c a m e r a

t i c k e t i n g

program.

6 .

The C i t y h a s a t t e m p t e d t o keep

i t s

arguments

a s

s h o r t .

a s

p o s s i b l e

so

a s

t o

m i n i m i z e

t h e

a m o u n t o f

d d i t i o n a l

space

r e q u i r e d .

WHEREFORE

h e

C i f y

r e s p e c t f u l l y

r e q u e s t s t h a t

t h i s

Court

g r a n t t h e C i t y

l e a v e t o

f i l e

i n s t a n t e r

i t s

M e m o r a n d u m i n

Support

of t s S e c t i o n

2 - 6 1 9 . 1 Motion t o

Dismiss

of 2 9

pages

a n d

~6~


3/40

g r a ~ l t

t h e C i t y such

f u r t h e r

r e l i e f

a s

t h e

Court

deems

u s t

and

a p p r o p r i a t e .

Dated: F e b r u a r y

1 0 ,

2015

MARDELL

NEREIM

REBECCAALFERTHIRSH

GRANTULLRICH

C i t y

o f

Chicago,

Department

ofLaw

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l

and Commercial

L i t i g a t i o n

D i v i s i o n

30 North

L a S a l l e

S t r e e t ,

S u i t e 1230

Chicago, l l i n o i s

b0602

(312)

42-0260

/

744-7864

A t t o r n e y

N o. 90909

R e s p e c t f u l l y

s u b m i t t e d ,

STEPHEN

.

PATIO ,

C o r p o r a t i o n

Co

e l f o e

C i t

f

hicago

B a r • ~ ~

~

A s s i s t a n t

C o i p o i ~ a t i o n Counsel

3


4/40


5/40

IN

THE

II2CUTT

COURTOFCOOK

COUNTY,

LLINOXS

COUNTY

DEPARTMENT,

HANCERY

IVISION

TERIE

L.

KATA,

t a l

v .

CITY

OF

CHICAGO,

P l a i n t i f f s

D e f e n d a n t .

Case

No.

12

CH 418b

Hon.

i t a

Novak

C a l e n d a r

9

CITYOF

CHICAGO S

MEMOR NDUM

N

SUPPORTOF TS

COMBINED

SECTION

- 6 1 9 . 1

MOTIONTO

DISMISS

THE

SECOND

AMENDED

CLASS

ACTION

COMPLAINT

MARDELL

NEREIM

REBECCA

ALFERT

HIRSCH

GRANT

ULLRICH

C i t y

of

hicago,

Department of

Law


and

Commercial

L i t i g a t i o n

D i v i s i o n

30 North

a S a l l e

S t r e e t

S u i t e

1230

Chicago,

l l i n o i s

6D602

312)

42-0260

44-7864

A t t o r n e y

No.

0909


6/40

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

i

TABLE OF

AUTHORTTI~S

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i

INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ARGUMENT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I

PLAINTIFFS

CLAIMS

ARC BARRED

BY

ES

UDICATA

BASED

ONTHE

JUDGMENT N

KEATI~VG

V . CITYOF

HICAGO.

S e c t i o n

2 - 6 1 9 ( a ) ( 4 ) )

4

A,

P l a i n t i f f s

l e g a l

i n t e r e s t s

were

d e q u a t e l y

r e p r e s e n t e d

i n

Keating

4

B.

The

l a i m s and a u s e s

of

c t i o n s r a i s e d

i n

t h i s

c a s e

were

Y ~ a i s e d

o r

c o u l d have been a i s e d i n Keating

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

C.

The e c i s i o n i n

Keating s a

i n a l judgment on

h e m e r i t s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

I I

PLAINTIFF

CLARKE SCLAIMS

ARE BARRED

BY

IDE 5

-YEAR

STATUTE

OF

IMITATION.

S e c t i o n 2 - 6 1 9 ( a ) ( 5 ) ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I I I

THE

STATUTE

DOES

NOTVIOLATE

THE

LLINOIS

CONSTITUTION.

( S e c t i o n 2 - 6 1

S) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A.

The

t a t u t e

i s

n o t s p e c i a l

o r

l o c a l

l e g i s l a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

B.

The n i f o r i ~ 7 i t y c l a u s e

does ~ o t

a p p l y t o t h e

S t a t u t e , a n d

even f

~

d i d ,

l ~ e

S t a t u t e

p a s s e s t h e t e s t

a s

a

a t t e r

of a w

1 3

C.

P l a i n t i f f s

f a i l

t o

s t a t e

a n

q u a l

p r o t e c t i o n

c l a i m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

IV.

PLAINTIFFS

FAIL

TOSTATE

A

VALIDCLAIM

CHALLENGING IDE

CITY S AUTHORITYTOENACT

THE

ORDINANCE.

S e c t i o n

2-615)

1 5

A.

To h e

e x t e n t

t 1 7 e

Ordinance

w a s z ~ e e m p t e d from

2003-2006,

t h e S t a t u t e a u t o m a t i c a l l y r e v i v e d

i t i n

May 0 0 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6

B.

I f

r e - e n a c t m e n t

w a s

e q u i r e d , t h e

C i t y

Council has

done so

1 7

C.

The i t y h a s

i n h e r e n t

home

u l e

a u t h o r i t y

t o

adopt

h e Ordinance

1 7

D.

The

Ordina nce has

n e v e r

been p e c i f i c a l l y

preempted 1 8

V.

PLAINTIFFS

FAIL TOALLEGEADUE ROCESS

VIOLATION. 2-615)

2 2

VT.

PLAINTIFFS FAIL

TO

STATEAVALIDCLAIMWITH

RESPECT

TOTHE

TIMING

OFYELLOW

IGHTS.

S e c t i o n

2-615)

2 4

V I I .

PLAINTIFFS

CLAIMS

ARE

BARRED

BY

THE

VOLUNTARY

PAYMENT

OCTRINE.

S e c t i o t l 2 - 6 1 9 ( a ) ( 9 ) ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7

CONCLUSION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

INDEX

OF

EXHIBITS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0

- i -


7/40

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

Cases

A l l e g J ~ o

S c ~ ~ v v . ,

L t c ~ v .

M e t r o . P i e s °

c ~ E x p o s i t i o n

A u t h . ,

172 l l . 2d 243

1996)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

A r ~ c ~ n g o l d

C o ~ ~ .

v .

Zehnder,

329 l l . App.

3d 781

1 s t

D i s t .

2 0 0 2 ) ,

a f f d ,

204

l l . 2d 142

2004)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 15

A ~ ~ i v a

v .

Madigan,

09 l l . 2d

520 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1 3 e r ~ g 1 ~ .

C i t y

of

hicago,

9 7

l l .

App.

2d 410 1 s t D i s t . 1968)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

2 9

1 3 l u s e

v .

S t a t e , 55 1 L

2d

94

1973)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5

Cable

» a e r ° i c a ,

I n c . v .

Pace

E l e c s . ,

I n c . ,

396

l l .

App. 3d 15

1 s t D i s t . 2009)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chicago

N a t l

League B a l l

C l u b ,

f a c .

> > . Thompson,

108

l l . 2d

357

1985)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1 1

C i t y

o f l 3 u ~ ° b a n k v .

C z a j a ,

331

l l . App.

3d 369 1 s t

D i s t .

2002)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6

C z l y of

hicago .

H e r t z

C o » ~ m e f ° c i a l Leaszng

C o r p . , 71 l l .

2d

333 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 ,

2 4

C i t y of

hicago .

Rona n ,

184 l l . 2d

504

1998)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8

C i t y

of

heaton

.

Loerop,

399

l l .

App.

3d 433

2d

D i s t . 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

20

C r o c k e r °

v .

F i n l e y ,

9 9

l l .

2d 444

1984)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

C u t i n e l l o

v .

W h i t l e y ,

1 6 1

I l l . 2d

409 1994)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1 1 , 12

Davzs

v .

Munie, 235

l l . 620

1908)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

D r e y f u s

v .

A m e r i t e c h

Mobile

Comm., ~ c . ,

2 98

l l . App.

3d

933 l s t D i s t . 1998)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

F i s c h e t t i

v .

V i l l .

of

chaumbu rg,

012

IL

App 1 s t ) 111008

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

23,

24

G J ~ a b e ~ ~ v .

C i t y

of

n keny,

56

N.W.2d

157 I o w a . 2003)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

Hinshaw

.

Co a c hm e n

n d u s . , I n c .

319 l l .

App.

3

2 69

1 s t

D i s t . 2001)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

H o f f m a n n

v .

C l a n k ,

6 9 l l . 2d 402

1977)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

Hudson ~ . C i t y

of

hicago,

228 l l .

2d

462

2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I c ~ i ~ z s v . C i t y

of

hicago, 552

. 3 d 564

7 t 1 1

C i r . 2009)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

Johnson

.

Nationwide B u s .

I o r ~ n s , I n c . ,

103

l l .

App.

3d

631 1 s t

D i s t .

1981)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Keating

.

C i t y of

hicago,

2013

IL

App

1 s t )

112559

-U

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5


8/40

Keatzng

. C i t y

hzcago,

2014

IL 116054 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

L am ar

W h i t e c o

OutdooN

C o ~ ~ ~ . v .

C z t y o f West

Chicago,

3SS

l l . App.

3d 352

2d D i s t .

2005)

. . . . . 8

L z l y

Lake R o a d

Defenders .

C n t y .

o f

cHe~~ry, 156 l l .

2d

1

(1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6

Mal on e y

.

B o l v e r ,

113

l l .

2d

473

1986)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

M o ~ • a n

7 r a n s ~ ~ .

Copp. .

S t r ~ o g e ~ ~ ,

303

l l . App. 3d

4S9

1 s t D i s t . 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

R ~

I l l .

HoM~e

B u i l d e r s

Assn,

n c . 1 ~ .

C n t y . o f

z ~ ~ a g e , 165

I 1 L 2d 25

(1995)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Napleton

v .

V i l l .

o f

z n s d a l e ,

229

l L

2d

296 2008)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

23

Nelson .

C h ic ago

P c ~ r ^ k D z s t . ,

408 l l . App. 3d

53

1 s t D i s t .

2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Palm v .

2800 fake

l ~ o i

e

i ° i ~ ~ e

Con do. A s s n , 2013

IL

110505 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

18

People ex

° e l .

1 3 u ~ • r i s

v .

1 y ~ o g r ~ e s s i v e

L a n d

e v e l o p e ~ ~ s ,

Z n c . , 151 I I . 2d

285

(1992)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

People

ex ° e l . C n t y .

o f

u P a g e .

S » i i t h , 21 I l l .

2d

572 19b

1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 12,

13

People

ex

° e l .

R y a n

> .

V i l l . o f

anover

Park,

311

I l l .

App.

3d 515

(L

t

D i s t .

1999)

. 1 8 ,

1 9 , 20,

21

People .

Jaudon ,

X07 l l .

App.

3d

427

l s t

D i s t .

1999)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

P e t e r s

v .

C i t y

o f S p ~ ° i n f i e l d , 57 I 1 .

2d 142 1974)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

P e t z t

v .

C z t ~ > o f

hicago,

766

F.

Supp. b07 N.D.

l l .

1991)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

P f e i f e r • v .

B e I X

H o w e l l

a . ,

53

l l .

App.

3d

26

l t

D i s t .

1977)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

P ~ ~ i m e c o

P e N s .

Commc

r ~ s ,

L .

P,

.

1 : C. .

196

l l . 2d 70 2001)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

Ralph

v .

Bd.

o f duc.

o f

ep u te

U n i t

S c h .

D i s t . ~ ~ o . 103,

84 l l . 2d

436

1981)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

R i v e s °

P a ~ ~ k ,

I n c . v .

C i t y

o f

ighland

Park,

184

l l .

2d 290 1998)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

S c c r d ~ ~ o n

v . C r t y o f

e s

l a r m e s ,

153

l l . 2d 164

1992)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8

SDS a f ~ t n e r ~ s , I n c .

v .

K r a n z e ~ ~ ,

305 l l .

App.

3d 893

4 t h

D i s t .

1999)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

S e n n

Park

N u i ° s z n g C t r ° .

v .

M i l l e r ,

104 l l .

2d

169

1984)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

Sunda n ce

H o m e s ,

n c .

v .

C n t y .

o f

u P a g e ,

195 l l .

2d 257

2001)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

United

r ^ z v a t e

D e t e c t i v e

a l ~ d S e c .

Ass

n , I n c .

v .

C i t y

o f

h ic ago ,

S6

l l . App. 3d

242

( l s t

D i s t .

1977)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8

V t r n

H a ~ ~ k e n

v .

C i t y

o f

h ic ago , 103

F.3d

1346

7 t h

C i r .

1999)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1


9/40

Van

Harken

> .

C i t y

of

hicago,

305 l l . .

App. 3d

972

1 s t

D i s t . 1999)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

V i l l .

o f S c l ~ a u m b u ~ ° g v .

Doyle, 277

l l .

App.

3d

832 1 s t

D i s t .

1996)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

W a ~ e l l a

Educ.

Assn .

I l l .

Educ.

a b o t ~ R e l a t i o n s B d . ,

177

l l App.

3d

153

4 t i i D i s t . 1988)

. . . . . . 8

Wauconda

z r ^ e P ~ ~ o t .

D i s t .

v .

S t o n e u l a l l

O f ~ c 1 ~ a ~ ° d s ,

LLP,

1 4

1 L

2d 417 2005)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

W i l k e s

v .

D e e f f e l d - B a n n o c k b u r ~ z

F z r e

P r o t .

D i s t . , 80

l l . App. 3d

327 2d

D i s t .

1979)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

Y o n i k z ~ s

v .

I ~ ~ d u s .

C o r n ~ ~ ~ n ,

228 l l . App. 3d 333

5 t h

D i s t .

1992)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 17

Y o i ~ u l f ~ ~ a z o g l u

v . Lake

F o ~ ~ e s t

H o s p . , 359

l l . App. 3d

SS4

1 s t

D i s t .

1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

S t a t u t e s

5 ILCS

1 0 0 / 1 - 5 ,

e t

seq

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

6 5

ILCS

5 / 1 - 2 . 1 - 1 0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

6 5

ILCS

5 / 1 - 2 . 1 - 2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

625

ILCS 5 / 1 . 1 - 2 0 1 ,

e t

seq

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

625

ILCS 5 / 1 1 - 2 0 8 . 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 3

625

ILCS

5 / 1 1 - 2 0 8 . 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 0 ,

13,

22

625

ILCS

5 / 1 1 . - 2 0 8 . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

625

ILCS

5 / 1 1 - 3 0 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

625

ILCS

5 / 1 1 - 3 0 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

625

ILCS

5 / 1 1 - 3 0 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

625

ILCS

5 / 1 6 - 1 0 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

625

ILCS

5 / 6 - 2 0 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

735 ILCS

5 / 1 3 - 2 0 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

735

ILCS

5 / 2 - 6 0 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

735 ILCS

5 1 2 - 6 1 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p a s s i m

735

ILCS

5 / 2 - 6 1 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

7,

,

27

735 ILCS 5 / 2 - 6 1 9 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

-iv-


10/40

An

ct

concerning

r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Pub. Act

94-0795, 2006

l l .

Laws 1204

a t t a c h e d

a s Ea.

1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 22

. S . C . T i t l e

23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 26

Mules

and

Regulations

I l l

. S.

t .

R .

23

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

14 l l .

R e g . 3694

Feb.

22,

1990) a t t a c h e d

a s

Ex. 12)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

23

C.F.R. ~

655.603 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

7 4

Fed. R . 66730

Dec.

16,

2009)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5

7 7 Fed.

R . 28460

May 4,

2012)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5

92 l l .

Admin. C o d e

§ 4 6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6


Provisions

I l l

.

C o n s t . ,

r t .

IV, ~

13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

I l l

.

C o n s t . ,

a r t .

IX,

2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3

I l l

. C o n s t . ,

a r t . V I I ,

~

6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 18

Ordinances

J .

Proc. o f

h e C r t y

Council

o f

hicago, l l . , J u l .

9, 003,

t 43 4 9 a t t a c h e d

a s

Ex.

) . . . . . . . 1 ,

18,

20

J .

P ~ ~ o c .

o f h e C z t y

Council o f

hicago, l l . , No v . 13,2007, t 14999

a t t a c h e d

a s

Ex.

A ) . . . . . . . . 1 7

, ~

P ~ ~ o c .

o f

h e C i t y

Council o f l ~ ~ z c a g o ,

I l l . ,

Dec.

2,

2009,

t 78837 a t t a c h e d as

Ex.9B)

. . . . . . . . . 1 7

J .

P ~ • o c .

o f

l ~ e

C i t y

Council o f l ~ i c ~ r g o ,

I l l . ,

No v . 16,

2011,

t

13798

a t t a c h e d as

Ex.

9C)

. . . . . . . 1 7

. I .

Ptoc.

_ f t h e C i t y

Council o f

hicago,

I I . , Apr. i8,

2012, t

23762 a t t a c h e d as Ex.9D)

. . . . . . . 1 7

Municipal C o d e

o f

hicago,

l l . ,

C h .

-100 a t t a c h e d as Ex.

3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 ,

24,

28,

29

Municipal C o d e o f

hzcago, l l . , C h.

-102

a t t a c h e d a s Ex.

3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ,

21,

28

-v-


11/40

INTRODUCTION

T h i s

c a s e

i s

a

c h a l l e n g e

t o

t h e a u t o m a t e d .

e d

l i g h t

camera

e n f o r c e m e n t

program

o p e r a t e d

by

t h e

C r t y of

Chicago

( C i t y )

s i n c e 2003.

P l a i n t i f f s

c h a l l e n g e

t h e

2 0 06

s t a t e

law

which

p a r t i a l l y

a u t h o r i z e d such

programs

t h e

S t a t u t e ) ;

t h e 2 0 0 3

o r d i n a n c e

which

c r e a t e d

t h e

C i t y ' s

program

t h e

O r d i n a n c e ) ; and

t h e

l e g a l i t y of

e r t a i n t i c k e t s i s s u e d

u n d e r

t h e

O r d i n a n c e .

T h i s

c a s e

i s

n e a r l y

i d e n t i c a l

t o a p u t a t i v e c l a s s

a c t i o n

b r o u g h t

by

h e

s a m e

c o u n s e l i n

2010,

wh i c h

w as

r e s o l v e d

i n

t h e

C i t y ' s f a v o r . Because

a l l

of l a i n t i f f s '

c l a i m s

have

been

o r

c o u l d

have

been

r a i s e d

i n

t h e

p r e v i o u s

c a s e , a s

w e l l a s

i n

o t h e r

r e d

l i g h t camera

i t i g a t i o n

b r o u g h t

i n d i v i d u a l l y

by

s o m e of

h e

P l a i n t i f f s ,

t h e

e n t i r e c a s e s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d

o n

° e s

j u d i c u t u

g r o u n d s .

T h i s

c a s e

s h o u l d

a l s o

be d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e none

of

h e

c l a i m s

have

any m e r i t i n

t h e i r

o w n r i g h t .

A l t h o u g h .

P l a i n t i f f s ' 48- p a g e , 3 01

- p a r a g r a p h

Se c ond A m e n d e d

C i a s s

A c t i o n

Complaint

( Complaint o r

Co mpl. ) p u r p o r t s t o

o n l y c o n t a i n

t h r e e c o u n t s ,

i t

a l l e g e s t h e

f o l l o w i n g l a u n d r y

l i s t of l a i m s :

{

) h e S t a t u t e i s


s p e c i a l

o r

l o c a l

l e g i s l a t i o n ,

C o m p l . ~¶

276-77; ( 2)

h e S t a t u t e v io l a t e s

t h e

u n i f o r m i t y

c l a u s e

o f

h e I l l i n o i s


i d .

¶

78; (3) h e

S t a t u t e

v i o l a t e s t h e

e q u a l . p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e

of

h e

I l l i n o i s

C o n s t i t u t i o n , i d . ¶

279;

{4)

h e O r d i n a ~ l c e i s

i n v a l i d

b e c a u s e

t h e

C i t y

l a c k e d

a u t h o r i t y

t o

e n a c t

i t

i n

2003, d .

¶~

2 6 7 - 7 1 ;

(5) h e

O r d i n a n c e

r e m a i n s

i n v a l i d

b e c a u s e

t h e C i t y

f a i l e d t o r e - e n a c t i t

a f t e r

2006,

i d . ¶

274;

(6)

h e

Ordinance i o l a t e s

t h e

d u e p r o c e s s

c l a u s e

of h e

I l l i n o i s

C o n s t i t u t i o n b } ~

p u n i s h i n g

v e h i c l e

owne r s n s t e a d . o f

r i v e r s ,

i d .

~ 282; 7 )

ny

i c k e t i s s u e d

u i l d e ~ ~

t h e

Ordinance

f o l l o w i n g a

y e l l o w

l i g h t w i t h

a d u r a t i o n

o f

e s s

t h a t

3 . 0

s e c o n d s

i s

i n v a l i d , z d .

292;

and

{8)

l a i n t i f f s a r e

e n t i t l e d

t o

r e s t i t u t i o n of l l

m o n e y p a i d

f o r

any t i c k e t

d e t e r m i n e d

t o be

improper

under

any of h e

f o r e g o i n g

The

S t a t u t e

i s : A ~ ~

Acf

concerning

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Pub .

Act

94-0795,

2 0 0 6

I l l .

L a w s

1 2 0 4

( a i l ~ e n d i n g

t h e I l l i n o i s

Vehicle C o d e , 6 2 5 ILCS 5/1-100 e t

s e q . )

a t t a c h e d

as

Ex.

1 ) .

The

O r d i j ~ a i ~ c e , i s

foun d

a t J .

Proc.

o f

h e C i t y

C o u nc il o f hicago, l l . ,

J u l .

9, Q03, t

4349

h e r e i n a f t e r

C o u ~ 2 c z l

J . (adding

C h .

- 1 0 2

o f

l ~ e

Municipal C o d e o f

h i c ago( MCC ))

a t t a c h e d as

Ex.

) .


12/40

t h e o r i e s ,

i d . pp. 6 - 4 7 . ~

P l a i n t i f f s ' a t t a c k s on t h e

S t a t u t e f a i l

because

the

S t a t u t e i s

not

p r o h i b i t e d

s p e c i a l or

l o c a l

l e g i s l a t i o n

and

does not v i o l a t e the

u n i f o r m i t y

or

equal

p r o t e c t i o n

c l a u s e s

of

the

I l l i n o i s

C o n s t i t u t i o n .

Clarke i s

t h e

only p l a i n t i f f

who

claims

t o have

been

t i c k e t e d

under t h e

pre

-2006

Ordinance,

and h i s claims a r e b a r r e d

b y the

s t a t u t e of

i m i t a t i o n .


claims a g a i n s t

the

p r e

-2006

Ordinance a l s o

f a i l because t h e

City

had

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

home

u l e

a u t h o r i t y t o enact the

Ordinance

i n

2003 and was not preempt ed

from

e x e r c i s i n g

i t

b y

any

s t a t u t e .


claim

t h a t the

City

was

r e q u i r e d

t o

r e p e a l

and r e - e n a c t

t h e

Ordinance

f t e z •

passage of h e S t a t u t e

~o

the

e x t e n t

i t

was

pre-empted e a r l i e r )

i s

c o n t r a r y t o

well

- e s t a b l i s h e d l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s ,

and

t h e i r

undeveloped

due

process

claim

f a r e s

no

b i t t e r .


yellow l i g h t

d u r a t i o n

claims

f a i l

because the

Complaint

does not i d e n t i f y

any

l e g a l l y

- e n f o r c e a b l e

requirement

r e l a t e d t o

th e

minimum

d u r a t i o n

of

yellow t r a f f i c L i g h t s .

F i n a l l y ,

P l a i n t i f f s

a r e not

e n t i t l e d t o

r e s t i t u t i o ~ i

because

the Ordinance

i s

v a l i d , but

even

i f

t was

n o t ,

t h e i r claims

f o r

r e s t i t u t i o n would be

b a r r e d

b y the v o l u n t a r y

p a y m en t

d o c t r i n e . For a l l of h e s e

reasons, as

explained i n

d e t a i l

below,

the

e n t i r e

Complaint

should b e dismissed.

PROCEDUR L

B CKGROUND

On u l y

9, 2003,

the

C i t y

adopted

the

O r d i r 3 a n c e ,

wh i c h

e s t a b l i s h e d

a

program.

t o use

e l e c t r o n i c

s e n s o r s

and

c a m e r a s t o d e t e c t

and record

i m a g e s

of

e h i c l e s

t h a t

h ad e n t e r e d

c e r t a i n

i n t e r s e c t i o n s

a g a i n s t a

red

l i g h t . C o m p l . ~ ; MCC

-102-010

e t

s e q .

( a t t a c h e d

as Ex.

) . Th e

S t a t u t e , wh i c h took

e f f e c t

May 2, 2006,

provides

t a t i r t o r ~ ~

a u t h o r i t y

f o r

the

i n s t a l l a t i o n

of

such

~

Because


a l l e g a t i o n s a r e

r e p e t i t i v e

and

e a c h c l a i m

i s n o t

p r e s e n t e d i n a e p a r a t e

c o u n t ,

t h e

Complaint does

n o t

comply

w i t h

s e c t i o n

2-603 of

t h e Code

of

C i v i l P r o c e d u r e .

See

735

ILCS

5 / 2 - 6 0 3 . F a i l u r e

# o

c o m } ~ l y

w i t h

s e c t i o n

2-603 s a

t ~ f ~ c i e n t

b a s i s

t o d i s m i s s

a

c o m p l a i n t , when

e i t h e r

t h e

c o m p l a i n t

i s n o t

p l a i n

and

c o n c i s e o r when t l ~ e a l l e g a t i o n s

...suggest

m u l t i p l e _ c a u s e s

of

c t i o n ,

i ~ o t

i d e n t i f i e d and

s e g r e g a t e d a s

r e q u i r e d u n d e r

s e c t i o n 2 - 6 0 3 ( b ) . Cable

America, n c .

v

Pac e E l e c s . ,

I n c . ,

396

1 1

A p p .

3d

1

S ,

19-22

l

s t D i s t . 2 0 0 9 ) .

2


13/40

r e d

l i g h t

camera systems

i n

e i g h t

I l l i n o i s

c o u n t i e s

—Cook,

uPage , Kane,

Lake,

McHenry,

i l l ,

S t .

C l a i r

and

Madison

—and

allowed

f o r t h e

i m p o s i t i o n

of

i a b i l i t y

on h e

r e g i s t e r e d

owner

of

h e

v i o l a t i n g

v e h i c l e .

Compl.

~

107-110;

625 ILCS

S / 1 1 - 2 0 8 . 8 ( c ) ,

5 / 1 1 - 2 0 8 . 6 ( m ) .

The S t a t u t e

a l s o

amended

t h e

I l l i n o i s

V e h i c l e Code

t o

a l l o w

any

m u n i c i p a l i t y o r

county

w i t h such

a

system

(home

u l e

o r

n o t )

o

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y a d j u d i c a t e v i o l a t i o n s .

b25

ILCS

5 / 1 1 - 2 0 8 . 3 ( a ) .

I n

2010,

l a i n t i f f s '

c o u n s e l

i n

t h i s c a s e f i l e d a

p u t a t i v e

c l a s s

a c t i o n

i n

t h e C i r c u i t Court

of

Cook

County,

K e a t i n g e t

a l .

v .

C i t y of

Chicago,

c h a 1 1 e 1 1 g i 1 1 g

t h e

S t a t u t e and

O r d i n a n c e .

That

c a s e

w a s

d i s m i s s e d w i t h

p r e j u d i c e

by t h e C i r c u i t

Court on

August 2, 2011.

See

Mem. p.

Order,

C i r .

C t .

Cook

C n t y .

No. 1 0 CH

8652

(Aug.

2,

2011)

Hyman,

. )

( a t t a c h e d

a s

Ex.

) .

The

A p p e l l a t e

C o u r t . a f f i r m e d t h e

judgment of h e

C i r c u i t

Court

on

J a n u a r y

23,

2013,

n an

o r d e r

i s s u e d

under

Supreme

Court

Rule

23 .

3

2013 IL A p p 1 s t )

112559-U.

The

Supreme Court

heard

a u r t h e r

a p p e a l b u t

w a s

u n a b l e t o

s e c u r e

t h e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y ~ • e q u i r e d

c o n c u r r e n c e

of

o u r

judges

f o r a d e c i s i o n ;

i t s

r e s u l t i n g

d i s m i s s a l of

h e

a p p e a l .

had

t h e

same

e f f e c t as

an

a f f i r m a n c e

[of

h e

A p p e l l a t e

C o u 1 ~ t d e c i s i o n )

by an e q u a l l y

d i v i d e d

c o u r t .

2014

IL

116054,¶ .

I n

t h e

meantime, l a i n t i f f s

Kata

and S u l l i v a n , . who ere

members of

h e p u t a # i v e

c l a s s i n

K e a t i n g ,

f i l e d t h i s

p ~ . r t a t i v e c l a s s a c t i o n on A p r i l

18,

2012.

T h i s

c a s e w a s

s t a y e d

pending

t h e

a p p e a l

of

h ' e a t z n g i n

t h e

A p p e l l a t e

Court and

Supreme

C o u r t .

On November° 20, 2014,

t h e

Supreme

Court d i s m i s s e d

t h e Keating a p p e a l . On

ecember

1 5 ,

2014, h i s

Court

i f t e d

t h e

s t a y

and

g r a n t e d

P l a i n t i f f s

l e a v e t o f i l e an

amended c o m p l a i n t .

P l a i n t i f f s

f i l e d

t h e

i n s t a n t

Complaint

on

December

22, 2014,

d d i ~ ~ g

p l a i n t i f f s

C l a r k e ,

Gernaga, and R a r n i .

The

C i t y

no w

moves

t o

d i s m i s s

p u r s u a n t

t o

735 ILLS

5 / 2 - 6 1 9 . 1 .

3

O r d e r s

f i l e d

u n d e r R u l e 23

a r e

n o t p r e c e d e n t i a l a n d m a y

n o t

b e

c i t e d by

any

p a r t y e x c e p t

t o

s u p p o r t

c o ~ ~ t e n t i o n s

of

o u b l e

j e o p a r d y , • e s

j u d i c a t a ,

c o l l a t e r a l

e s t o p p e l o r l a w

of h e c a s e . I l i .

S .

C t .

R.

2 3 . The

C i t y

i s

c i t i n g

t h e

K e a t i n g

O r d e r t o

s u p p o r t r e s u d i c a t a

g r o u n d s ,

e e i i ~ i

a

a r k

I ,

a n d

a

c o p y

i s

a t t a c h e d

a s

E x h i b i t

5 a ~ r e q u i r e d by

R u l e

2 3 .

3


14/40

RGUMENT

I .

PLAINTIFFS

LA~IYIS

AREBARRED

BY RES

JUDICATA

BASED ON

THE

JUDGMENT

IN

~A?'Z1VG V .

CITY

OF

HICAGO.

(SECTTON

- 6 1 9 ( a ) ( 4 ) )

Res

j u d i c a t a p r o v i d e s

t h a t

a

f i n a l

judgment

on t h e

m e r i t s

by a

c o u r t

of

competent

j u r i s d i c t i o n

a c t s a s an a b s o l u t e

b a r

t o

a

s u b s e q u e n t

a c t i o n

between

t h e

same p a r t i e s

o r

t h e i r

p r i v i e s i n v o l v i n g

t h e same

c l a i m ,

demand,

r

c a u s e

of

c t i o n .

Hudson

v

C z t y

of

hicago,

228

I l l

2d 462, 467

2 0 0 8 ) .

The

b a r

e x t e n d s

t o

a l l

m a t t e r s

r a i s e d

i n t h e f i r s t

a c t i o n ,

a s w e l l a s

t o a l l

m a t t e r s

t h a t

c o u l d

have

been

r a i s e d i n t h a t a c t io n .

I d .

Res

u d i c a t a

promotes

u d i c i a l

economy

by p r e v e n t i n g

r e p e t i t i v e

l i t i g a t i o n

and

a l s o

p r o t e c t s

p a r t i e s from

b e i n g

f o r c e d t o

b e a r

t h e

u n j u s t

burden

of

e l i t i g a t i n g e s s e n t i a l l y

t h e same

c a s e .

A r ~ i v a v

Madigan,

209

l l 2d

520,

533 2004).

A l l

e l e m e n t s

of

~ e s

j u d i c a t a

a r e

me# n t h i s

c a s e .

A.


Legal

n t e r e s t s Were

Adequately Re~resen~ed

In Keating.

A

a r t y

i s

bound

by

a

i n a l judgment

n a

p r i o r

a c t i o n

i f t h a t

p a r t y

was

n

p r i v i t y

with one

of

h e

p a r t i e s

i n

t h a t

l a w s u i t . P r i v i t y e x i s t s

between p a r t i e s w h o

a d e q u a t e l y

r e p r e s e n t

t h e

same

l e g a l

i n t e r e s t .

People ex

~ e l B u ~ ~ r i s

v P ~ ° o g ~ ~ e s s i v e

Land

D e v e l o p e r s ,

I n c . ,

151 I 1 1 2d 285,

296

(1992).

Legal

i n t e r e s t s

a r • e t h e

same when t h e y

i n v o l v e t h e same

o v e r r i d i n g

c o n c e r n .

Nelson

v

Chicago

P a y ° k D i s t . ,

408

l l

A p p .

3d

53,62 1 s t

D i s t . 2011).

A

u t a t i v e c l a s s

a c t i o n

can

have

a

p r e c l u s i v e

e f f e c t on

p u t a t i v e

c l a s s

members

whose

e g a l

i n t e r e s t s

w e r e .

a d e q u a t e l y


by

a r t i e s i n

t h a t c a s e even i f

t h e

c l a s s

was

not e r t i f i e d . I d .

Here,

P l a i n t i f f s a r e a l l e g e d t o

be v e h i c l e owners w h o

r e g u l a r l y

d r i v e

t h e i r

v e h i c l e s i n

Chicago.

Compl. ~ ~

1 4 - 1 9 . All

were

i s s u e d

automated r e d - l i g h t

v i o l a t i o n

c i t a t i o n s

under

t h e

Ordinance,

d

¶~

175,

193, 203, 216, 229, and l l

p a i d t h e i r

f i n e s ,

i d . ' ~ ¶

185, 196, 206,

223,

35.

They

b r i n g

t h i s

a c t i o n on

t h e i r

own

e h a l f and

on b e h a l f

o~ a

p u t a t i v e

c l a s s of i m i l a r l y

s i t u a t e d

p e r s o n s . I d , ( ( ~

240-~2.

Likewise, n

K e a t i n g , t h e p l a i n t i f f s

who were

found

t o

have

s t a n d i n g

by


15/40

t h e

A p p e l l a t e

Court

were

r e g i s t e r e d

v e h i c l e

owners

w 1 7 o

r e c e i v e d

r e d

l i g h t

v i o l a t i o n

c i t a t i o n s

from

t h e

C i t y

of Chicago and

paid t h e

f i n e s .

2413

IL

App

1 s t )

112559-U,

¶~

4

7 .

Keating

was a l s o

brought a s a

p u t a t i v e

c l a s s a c t i o n .

I d .

~

5;

Keating

v . C i t y

of

Chicago,

Am.

Compl.

i l e d

4/11/2011, No. 10 CH

8652, ~

114

( h e r e i n a f t e r

K e a t z ~ ~ g

Compl. ) a t t a c h e d as

Ex.

) .

P l a i n t i f f s h e r e were

mem be rs

of

h e

p l ~ t a t i v e c l a s s

i n

Keating

d e f i n e d a s :

persons

who

e c e i v e d .

a

`Red

Light

V i o l a t i o n '

o r

` V i o l a t i o n

Notice'

o r

s i m i l a r

communication,

s s u e d b y

or

i n t h e

name

of h e

CITY

OF

CHICAGO

..which

Notice a l l e g e d

o r

a s s e r t e d any

t r a f f i c

s i g n a l

v i o l a t i o n of

h e

I l l i n o i s

Motor

Vehicle

C o d e o r t h e Chicago

Municipal

Code,

where such

Notice

was g e n e r a t e d

i n

whole

o r i n p a r t

based o n

images

g e n e r a t e d b y a

`Red

Light

Camera'

o r

Automated

T r a f f i c Enforcement

System, and

who, by

reason

t h e r e o f ,

s u f f e r e d

an adverse

l e g a l

consequence,

n c l t i z d i n g :

i m p o s i t i o n

of a

e e , f i n e ,

p e n a l t y

or

s u r c h a r g e .

Keating

Compl.¶ 14.

I ' u t h e r m o r e ,

t h e

Keating

p l a i n t i f f s

were


b y

t h e

same

counsel

as P l a i ~ l t i f f s

i n

t h i s

c a s e . Although t h e

mere f a c t

t h a t t h e

same

a t t o r n e y

r e p r e s e n t s

t w o

i z l d i v i d u a l s does not

n e c e s s a r i l y p l a c e those i n d i v i d u a l s

i n

p r i v i t y , the

appearance of

h e

sam e

a t t o r n e y ...bolsters a

f i n d i n g of

p r i v i t y .

Y o e ° u l m a z o g l u

v

Lake

F o f ~ e s t

Hosp.,

359

I l l

A p p.

3d

554,

562

( l s t D i s t .

1995)

c i t i n g

47

Am..Tur.

2d

Judgments § 589);

see

a l s o

.Johnson

v

Nationwzde

Bus.

F o ~ ~ m s ,

I n c . ,

103

I l l App.

3d

631,

635

( l s t D i s t .

1981)

t h a t

same

a t t o r n e y


both

p l a i n ~ i ~ f s

s u p p o r t s f i n d i n g

of

r i v i t y ) .

This i s

e s p e c i a l l y

t r u e

where,

a s

h e r e , t h e

p l a i n t i f f s

i n t h e

second

c a s e

would

h a ~ ~ e

b e n e f i t t e d

i f

t h e

p l a i n t i f f s

i n

t h e

e a r l i e r

c a s e

had

p r e v a i l e d .

P e t i t

v

C i t y o f

Chicago,

766 F.

Sapp. 607,

613

(N.D.

l l

1991) T o allow

a second

d e t e r m i n a t i o n b y b r i n g i n g

[a]

e p a r a t e a c t i o n

...would

encourage

` f e n c e

- s i t t i n g '

and

d i s c o u r a g e

t h e

p r i n c i p l e s

and

p o l i c i e s

t h e d o c t r i n e of e s judicata was

designed

t o

promote ).

Accordingly,

l a i n t i f f s '

l e g a l

i n t e r e s t s

were r a i s e d and a d e q u a t e l y

r e p r e s e n t e d i n

Keatzng.

5


16/40

B.

The Claims And Causes

Of Actions Raised

In This Case

Were

Raised

Or

ould

Have

Been

Raised

In Keating.

Causes of c t i o n

a ~ ~ e

c o n s i d e r e d t o

l i e

t h e sane

o r

~ • e s

judzcata

purposes

when

they

a r i s e

from

a

s i n g l e group of

p e r a t i v e

f a c t s ,

r e g a r d l e s s

of

whether

they

a s s e z - t

d i f f e r e n t

t h e o r i e s of

r e l i e f :

R i v e r ~ ~

Park,

n c . v .

C i t y

o f

~ z g l ~ l a n d

P c ~ N k , 184

l l .

2d

290,

311 1998).

The

o p e r a t i v e

f a c t s i n

t h i s

c a s e and

h ' e a t i n ~ g

a r e i d e n t i c a l :

t h e C i t y e n a c t e d

t h e

Ordinance, t h e

General

Assembly

adopted t h e

S t a t u t e

g r a n t i n g

a d d i t i o n a l

a u t h o r i t y

f o r t h e

Ordinance,

and

p l a i n t i f f s

an d

members

of

h e p u t a t i v e

c l a s s have

been

i c k e t e d

under

h e

Ordinance.

Claims

e l a t e d

t o

yellow

l i g h t

d u r a t i o n

were l s o

r a i s e d

i n

t h e

e a t ~ l i e r l i t i g a t i o n .

See

Keating

Compl. ' ~

14,

107.

I n

f a c t ,

ma ny

of

h e

s u b s t a n t i v e

a l l e g a t i o n s i ~ l t h i s

Complaint a r e

verbatim from Keating.4

Any

n ew

m a t e r i a l i n

t h i s

Complaint s e i t h e r argument,

r r e l e v a ~ ~ t

t o

t h e c l a i m , o r

c l e a r l y could have

been

r a i s e d

i n

K e a f i r r g .

~urth~rmore, t h i s

c a s e

seeks

e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same

r e l i e f as was

sought i n

K e a t z r ~ g :

d e c l a r a t i o n s

i n v a l i d a t i n g

t h e Ordinance n d .

h e

S t a t u t e ,

i ~ i j u n c ~ i o n s

b a r r i n g

e n f o r c e m e ~ i t

of

h e

Ordinance, and

r e f u n d s

of r e v i o u s l y

- p a i d

amounts.

C ' o f ~ ~ p a ~ ~ e

Compl. t pp. 43-47,

~ i t h

Keating

Compl.

t

pp . 24-26.

C.

The

ecision In

Keating

Y s

A

inal

Judgment

On The

Merits.

To

have

p r e c l u s i v e

e f f e c t ,

a udgment

must

be

i n a l

and

o n h e m e r i t s .

Hudson,

228 l l .

2d t

467. A e c i s i o n

i s

~ i n a l ,

f o r

i ~ e s

judicata

p u r p o s e s ,

when t

l e a v e s n o t h i n g

more

o

do

h a n

execute

h e

judgment. SDS a r ° t n e 3 ~ s , I n c . v .

K r ~ a m e r ~ ,

305 l l . App. d 893,

9 6

4th

D i s t .

1 9 9 9 ) .

An

p p e l l a t e d e c i s i o n

i s f i n a l i f

i t a f f i r m s

t h e judgment

of

h e

t r i a l c o u r t . C f .

Ralph

v .

Bd. o f

Educ.

o f

epute

Unit c h ~ . D z s t . No.

103, 84

l l .

2d

436,

441-42 1981)

mandate

d i r e c t i n g

t r i a l

4 C o ~ n p ~ z r e

Compl, ~ ¶

2 0 - 2 2 , w i t h

K e a t i n g

Compl. ~¶ 8 - 1 0 ;

Compl.

' ~

2 3 - 3 4 ,

K e a t i n g Compl.

~¶

1 5 - 2 2 ;

Compl.

( ~

3 5 - 4 3 ,

K e a t i f ~ z g

CoinpL

~ ' ~

23-29;

Compl.

j ~ 4 5 - 4 7 ,

K e a t i n g

Compl. ( ~

3 1 - 3 3 ;

C o ~ i ~ p l .

~

49, e a t i n g Compl. ¶

36;

Compl.

' ~

5 1 - 5 2 ,

K e a t i n g

Compl.

~~

3 8 - 3 9 ;

Compl. ~ ~

1 0 6 - ] 2 ,

K e a t i n g

Compl. ( ~ 4 0 - 4 6 ;

Compl.

~ ~ 7 7 9 ,

K e a t z r a g

C o n 1 p 1 .

~

49; Compl. ' ~

1 2 2 - 1 5 1 . ,

K e c a t i i ~ g

Compl.

¶¶

S

- 6 8 ; C o t n p l . j

1 6 5 ,

K e a t i n g

Comp1.

j

l

4 .

6


17/40

c o u r t

t o e n t e r judgment

s n o t f i n a l ) . Thus, h e

d e c i s i o n i n

Keating

s f i n a l

i n

a l l

r e s p e c t s .

A l l

of

1 1 e

e l e m e n t s of e s u d i c a t a a l e

c l e a r l y s a t i s f i e d

h e r e .

P l a i n t i f f s

(and

t h e i r

counsel)

s h o u l d

n o t

be

p e r m i t t e d t o b r i n g r e p e t i t i o u s

c l a s s

a c t i o n s

c h a l l e n g i n g t he

v a l i d i t y

of

h e

s a m e

Ordinance and

l 7 e s a m e

S t a t u t e

a f t e r

t h o s e i n

p r i v i t y

w i t h them,

e p r e s e n t i n g

t h e

s a m e

n t e r e s t s ,

went

o

judgment

on

t h e m e r i t s ,

simply b e c a ~ i s e

t h e y

a r e unh appy

w i t h

t h e

e a r l i e r

outcome.

I t

i s

t h i s

w a s t e of e s o u r c e s

and u d i c i a l

time

t o say

n o t h i n g

of

forum

slopping)

h a t

t h e

d o c t r i n e of

r ° e s j u d i c c r t u i s i n t e n d e d

t o

p r e v e n t .

A c c o r d i n g l y ,

t h i s

Court

s h o u l d

d e c l i n e

P l a i ~ i t i f f s i n v i t a t i o n

t o

r e v i s i t t h e

i s s u e s

a l r e a d y

d e c i d e d

i n

K e a t i n g ,

o r which

c o u l d

have

been

p r e s e n t e d t h e r e ,

a nd

d i s m i s s

t h i s

c a s e on

- e s

u d i c a t a g r o u n d s .

s

I I .

PLAINTIFF CLARKE SCLAIMS

ARE

BARRED

BY

THE

5

-YEAR

STATUTE

OF

LIMITATION. SECTION

- 6 1 9 ( a ) ( 5 ) )

C l a r k e i s t h e o n l y P l a i n t i f f

w h o c l a i m s

t o

have r e c e i v e d

a

r e d

l i g h t

c ame ra

t i c k e t p r i o r

t o

t h e e f f e c # i v e

d a t e of h e S t a t u t e .

His

c l a i m s ,

however,

which

a r e

b a s e d

on a

r e d

l i g h t

c ame ra

t i c k e t .

s s u e d i n

J a n u a r y 2005,

r t

b a r r e d

b y

t h e a p p l i c a b l e

s t a t u t e

of

i m i t a t i o n .

I n d e e d ,

on

A p r i l

1 8 ,

2012,

wh e n

t h i s

c a s e

w a s

i r s t

f i l e d ,

t h e r e were

no l o n g e r

a n y

t i m e l y c l a i m s

t h a t

an y

p e r s o n

c o u l d

b r i n g

r e l a t e d t o

r e d l i g h t camera i c k e t s

i s s u e d

p r i o r t o

May

2,

006.

A

l a i m

f o r

t h e r e f u n d of

a n

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y imposed

f e e

o r

charge

s

governed

by

t h e

f i v e y e a r

s t a t u t e of

i m i t a t i o n

found

a t

735

ILCS

5 / 1 3 - 2 0 5 .

S i ~ n ~ d a t ~ c e

Domes,

n c .

v .

C n t y . of

D u ~ ' c r g e ,

195

I l l .

2 d 257, 282 (2001).

A l l

claims

s e e k i n g

a

r e t u r n of money, i ~ h e t h e r

c h a r a c t e r i z e d

a s

l e g a l

o r

e q u i t a b l e ,

a r e

s u b j e c t

t o

t h i s b a r . I d .

a t

284.

T h e

i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d

b e g i n

t o

run

w h e n

f a c t s

e x i s t

which

a u t h o r i z e one

p a r t y

t o m a i l ~ t a i n

a n

a c t i o n

a g a i n s t

a n o t h e r .

I d .

a t

s

P l a u a t a f f s S u l l i v a n a n d G e r n a g a

a r e

f u r t h e r

p r e c l u d e d

from

b r i n g i n g

c l a i m s

t s

t 1 ~ i s c a s e b y

t h e i r

p r i o r

r e d l i g h t

camera

i t i g a t i o n

w i t h

t l ~ e C i t y , c a s e s

i

1

MI

25329

Gernaga

v . C i t y

of

h i c a g o )

i d

12

M1

25424

S u l l i v a n v . C i t y

of

h i c a g o ) ,

b e c a u s e t h o s e

c a s e s h a v e r e s u l t e d

i n

f i n l

j ~ d g r n e n t s , a n d

f a c i a l

c h a l l e n g e s

t o

# h a

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y

of

~ ~ e

S t a t u t e

and

O r d i n a n c e G o u l d

lave b e e n

b r o a g h t

i n t h o s e

c a s e s .

The

p e r a t i v e p l e a d i n g s

a n d

judgment

r d e ~ • s from

t h o s e

c a s e s a r e

a t # a c h e d

a s

Group E x h i b i t

7 .


18/40

266 q u o t i n g

Davis .

Munae, 235

I I . 620,

622 1 9 0 8 ) ) .

l a i n t i f f s

claim

t h a t

an

ordinance

i s


b e g i n s

t o

r u n , a t

t h e

l a t e s t ,

when t h a t

p l a i n t i f f

i s

t i c k e t e d

under

t h e

challenged

o r d i n a n c e . See

La m a r Whrteco

O u t d o o r ° Corp. . C i t y

o f est

Chicago,

355

l l . App.

3d

352,

3b4

(2d D i s t . 2005) c o n s t i t u t i o n a l claim

r i p e n s

upon

i s s u a n c e o f

i c k e t

s e e k i n g

t o

e n f o r c e challenged

law a g a i n s t

p l a i n t i f f ;

Wapella

Educ. As s n

v .

I l l .

Educ.

L c z b o ~ °

R e l a t i o n s

Bd.,

177

l l

A p p .

3d

153, 168 4 t h D i s t .

1 . 9 8 8 )

(cause

o f c t i o n a c c r u e s

a t time

o f

wrongful

a c t ) .

A n d

a

i m i t a t i o n

p e r i o d

t i l l

n o t await c o m m e n c e m e n t

n t i l

a

l a i n t i f f

has

a s s u ~ • a n c ~

o f h e

s u c c e s s

o f

an

a c t i o n .

S u n ~ d c r n c e

H o me s, 195 l L 2d a t

2b6.

I n

Sundance

Ho m es,

h e

Su p r e m e

Court

e x p l a i n e d

t h a t s t a t u t e s

o f

i m i t a t i o n a r e v a l i d

p r o c e d u r a l

r e s t r i c t i o n s

which may e

i n v o k e d . t o

b a s • a

m e r i t o r i o u s

claim

f o r

a

e f u n d ,

even

when

t h a t

c l a i m

i s

based

up on

a ...statute

t h a t

has

been h e l d

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

1 . 9 5

I l l . 2d a t

270.

The purpose o f

a s t a t u t e

o f

i i z l i t a t i o n i s

t o

d i s c o u r a g e t h e

p r e s e n t a t i o n o f

t a l e

claims

and

t o

encourage

d i l i g e t z c e i n

b r i n g i n g

o f c t i o n s . I d .

a t

265-6b.

The

purpose

. . .

s

not t o

s h i e l d a

wrongdoer,

but s

t o

p r o v i d e

t h e

defendant

with a

u f f i c i e n t

o p p o r t u n i t y t o

i n v e s t i g a t e

t h e

f a c t o r s

upon

l l i c i l

h i s

l i a b i l i t y n l a y

be

based

while

such e v i d e ~ l c e i s

s t i l l a s c e r t a i n a b l e .

P f e z f e ~ ~

v .

B e l l

o ~ a ~ e l l Co.,53

l l .

App. 3d 26,

27

l s t D i s t .

1977)

c i t a t i o n s

o m i t t e d ) .

Here, larke was

i c k e t e d

i n

January

2005.

C o m p l .

¶ 03.

C l a r k e ' s

claims

l l flow

from

t h e i s s u a n c e of h a t t i c k e t .

See

i d . ¶~ 202-214.

Each claim

Clarke

now

s s e r t s

accrued

when

h a t

t i c k e t

was s s u e d and could have i r s t

been

brought by

Clarke

i n

2005.

Clarke

d i d

not

be c o me

a

p l a i n t i f f

i n

t h i s s u i t u n t i l

D e c e mbe r

22,

2014—nearly

e 1 1

y e a r s

a f t e r

h i s

claims

c c r u e d .

Because

C l a r k e ' s

claims

r e

untimely,

hey

must

be

dismissed

pursuant

o

735

ILCS

/ 2 - 6 1 9 ( a ) ( 5 ) .


19/40

I I I .

THE

STATUTE

DOES

NOT

VIOLATE

THE

ILLINOIS

CONSTITUTION.

SECTION

-615)

A.

The

t a t u t e

I s Not

p e c i a l Or

ocal

e g i s l a t i o n .

The

l l i n o i s

C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s

t h a t

[ t ] 1 1 e

G e n e ~ • a l

Assembly

s h a l l p a s s

no

s p e c i a l

o r

l o c a l

law

when

a

e n e r a l

Iaw

s o r

can be made

p p l i c a b l e .

I l i .

C o n s t . ,

r t .

N 1 3 .

T h i s

does

n o t

p r o h i b i t a l l

l e g i s l a t i v e

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ;

i n p a r t i c u l a r ,

p o p u l a t i o n

and

e r r i t o r i a l d i f f e r e n c e s

a r e

w e l l

- a c c e p t e d

r e a s o n s

j u s t i f y i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

S e e ,

e . g . ,

N.

l l .

Horne

B u i l d e r ^ s

A s s ' r ~ , I n c .

v .

C n t y .

ofDu~'age, 165 l l . 2d 25, 9-40

1 9 9 5 ) ;

C u t i n e l l o v . W h z t l e y ,

1 6 1 I l L 2d

409, 17; 18-19

( 1 9 9 4 ) .

There

i s

a s t r o n g

p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r of

h e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y

of

e g i s l a t i o n ,

and

t h e

p a r t y c h a l l e n g i z i g

t h e l e g i s l a t i o n h a s t 1 1 e

burden

o f ' s h o w i n g t h e

law

s

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l .

S e e ,

e . g . ,

Chicago a t ' l League ~ r l l C l u b , I n c .

v .

T h o r l ~ p s o n ,

108

l l .

2d

357,

68

1 9 8 5 ) .

The

a t i o n a l

b a s i s

t e s t a p p l i e s t o

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s

c h a l l e n g e d

a s

s p e c i a l

o r l o c a l

l e g i s l a t i o n

s o

l o n g a s ,

l i k e h e r e , t h e r e i s

no

u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t o r

s u s p e c t c l a s s a t

i s s u e .

S e e ,

e . g . ,

C u t i n e l l o ,

1 6 1

I l l .

2d a t 417;

Chicago

N a t ' l

League,

108 1 L 2d

a t 3 6 8 . The

a t i o n a l

b a s i s

t e s t

r e q u i r e s t h e

c o u r t

t o

i n q u i r e

w h e t h e r t h e s t a t u t o r y

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s

r a t i o n a l l y

r e l a t e d

t o a

l e g i t i m a t e

govermnent

n t e r e s t .

I d .

When

h e

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s b a s e d

on

p o p u l a t i o n

o r

t e r r i t o r i a l

d i f f e r e n c e s ,

t h e

law

s h o u l d be

u p h e l d

where

founded

on a r a t i o n a l

d i f f e r e n c e of

s i t u a t i o n

o r

c o n d i t i o n

e x i s t i n g i n t h e

p e r s o n s

o r o b j e c t s upon w hich t h e

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ]

r e s t s and t h e r e

is a

e a s o n a b l e

b a s i s

f o r

t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n view

of

h e o b j e c t s and

p u r p o s e s

t o

be

a c c o m p l i s h e d .

Chicago

N a t ' l League, 108

l l .

2d a t

369.

See a l s o C u t i n e l l o ,

161 l l .

2d

a t 418.

Thus,

t a t u t e

must be

u p h e l d i f any s e t

of

a c t s

call be

r e a s o n a b l y

c o n c e i v e d

which

u s t i f y

d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e

c l a s s

t o

which

t h e

law

a p p l i e s

from t h e

c l a s s t o

which

t h e

s t a t u t e

i s

i n a p p i z c a b l e .

C u t i n e l l o , 161

l l . 2d

a t 418. Whether a

a t i o n a l

b a s i s e x i s t s

i s

a

u e s t i o n of aw, hich m a y

be

d e c i d e d

on

a

o t i o n

t o

d i s m i s s , T i l l . of chaumburg

.

Doyle,

77

l l . App.

d

832, 41-42

1 s t D i s t .

1 9 9 6 ) .

~~


20/40

Under

h e s e s t a n d a r d s ,

t h e

S t a t u t e c l e a r l y

p a s s e s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m u s t e r .

A

ombination

o~

t e r r i t o r i a l

and p o p u l a t i o n

d i f f e r e n c e s

s e t s a p a r t t h e

e i g h t

s e l e c t e d

c o u n t i e s , and

t h e

m u n i c i p a l i t i e s

w i t h i n

t h e i r

b o r d e r s , fr om

a l l o t h e r

l o c a l i t i e s

i n I l l i n o i s .

These

a r e

t h e

e i g h t

m os t

populous

c o u n t i e s

n e a r e s t

t o t h e two

L a r g e s t

c i t i e s i n t h e

r e g i o n

—Chicago

and

S t .

L o u i s .

Chicago

i s i n

C ook

County,

and Lake,

McHenry,

Kane, DuPage,

and W i l l

C o u n t i e s

a r e

t h e

f i v e

c o l l a r

c o u n t i e s

immediately

s u r r o u n d i n g Cook,

See

Map

f

l l i n o i s

( a t t a c h e d

a s

Ex. ) .

6

S i m i l a r l y ,

Madison and

S t .

C l a i r

C o u n t i e s a r e d i r e c t l y

o u t s i d e

o f

S t . L o u i s .

I d .

T h e

General

Assembly

r e a s o n a b l y

could have

b e l i e v e d

t h a t

t h e

combination

of l a r g e

p o p u l a t i o n s ,

c l o s e l y

- s p a c e d

m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ,

and

numerous

~ n ~ e l l - t r a v e l e d

r o a d s c o n n e c t e d

t o

t h e s e

t w o

major urban

c e n t e r s

r e s u l t s

i n h i g h e r

t r a f f i c

volume

i n

t h e

e i g h t

s p e c i f i e d

c o u n t i e s ,

and

t h a t

t h i s , i n t u r n ,

d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y

l e a d s t o

r e d

l i g h t

v i o l a t i o n s

i n t h e s e a r e a s .

A c c o r d i n g l y , i t

was r a t i o n a l t o

a u t h o r i z e a d d i t i o n a l

enforcement

t e c h n i q u e s

f o r t h e s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s .

Us e

o f

cameras i n a d d i t i o n

t o p o l i c e

o f f i c e r s

and

a d r 7 l i n i s t r a t i v e

a d j u d i c a t i o n

a s

w e l l

a s

c i r c u i t

c o u r t

p r o c e s s

f a c i l i t a t e s

enforcement

n

a r e a s

~ ~ h e r e

r e d l i g h t

v i o l a t i o n s

a r e

l i k e l y

m o r e

r e q u e n t

and

numerous.

P l a i n t i f f s

cannot

s h o w t h a t t h e

S t a t u t e

l a c k s

a

r a t i o n a l b a s i s .

T h e y

c o z z f u s e

t h e

r e a l

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

a t

i s s u e

by

m i s c h a r a c t e r i z i n g

i t a s

a p p l y i n g t o

m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ,

r a t h e r

t h a n

c o u n t i e s .

S e e ,

e . g .

Compl. ~¶

144,

1 5 0 . T h e y

c o n t r a s t

examples

o f

m a l l

c i t i e s t h a t

m a y

adopt r e d l i g h t

camer a

systems

w i t h l a r g e r

c i t i e s

t h a t

c a n n o t . I d .

~ ~ (

1 3 7 - 4 3 .

But

h e

S t a t u t e

c l e a r l y a u t h o r i z e s

t h e

c o u n t i e s

o f

Cook, DuPage,

Kane,

Lake,

Madison,

McHenry, S t .

C l a i r ,

and W i l l and


l o c a t e d

w i t h i n

t h a . s e

c o u n t z e s

t o

e n a c t r e d

l i g h t

c a mera

o r d i n a n c e s .

625

ILLS

5/11-208.6 m)

emphasis

a d d e d ) .

T h e

p ~ r i ~ z i s s i o n g r a n t e d t o

t h e s e

p a r t i c u l a r


a nd

c o u n t i e s i s

f i r m l y

I i n k e d

b y

t h e S t a t u t e

t o

v ~ r l 7 e r e

t 1 7 e

c o u n t i e s

a r e

l o c a t e d .

Even t h e

s m a l l e s t

~

This

Court

may

a k e

j u d i c i a l

n o t i c e

o f m a p s ,

n c l u d i ~ l g

those

sl owing

cou nty

l i m e s . Hinshaw

v .

C o a c h ~ r ~ ~ e r ~

I i ~ ~ d u s . . I i ~ c . 319 i l .

A p p . 3d 269,272

~ . 2

1st

D i s h . 2001).

- 1 0 -


21/40

m ~ z n i c i p a i i t i e s i n

t h e s e

r e g i o n s

a r e d i f f e r e n t

f i o n 1


l i k e

S p r i n g f i e l d , P e o r i a ,

and

Rockford,

t h a t

have

l a r g e

p o p u l a t i o n s

but a r e not l o c a t e d

w i t h i n

r e g i o n s c o n t a i n i n g t h e

same

t r a f f i c ,

r o a d s ,

d e n s i t y , and

p r o x i m i t y t o

Chicago

o r S t .

L o u i s .

See

people

ex r e l . C n t y .

o f

D uP a ge v .

S m i t h , 2i

I l l . 2 d

572,

578

(1961) p r o x i m i t y t o

g r e a t c e n t [ e r ] s

o f

p o p u l a t i o n

ma y

p r e s e n t

a

r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s

f o r

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ) .

The

o t h e r

d i f f e r e n c e s

t h a t

P l a i n t i f f s

complain

about —that Kankakee i s

c l o s e r t o

Chicago

t h a n

i s

Harvard, and

t h a t

S p r i n g f i e l d ,

P e o r i a ,

and

Rockford a t • e

l a r g e r

t h a n

Lenzburg o r

o t h e r

m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n

Madison, t . C l a i r ,

a z l d t h e

o t h e r

s e l e c t e d

c o u t z t i e s ,

s e e Compl.

~

137-43

— a r e

i r r e l e v a n t

f o r t h e

same

r e a s o n .


complaint

t h a t

city of chicago motion to dismiss red light case

Documents