Post on 01-Jun-2018
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
2/40
C o n s t i t u t i o n ,
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~
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
4/40
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
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
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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 -
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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-
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
C o n s t i t u t i o n a l
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-
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
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 ,
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
C o n s t i t u t i o n ,
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.
) .
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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 .
P l a i n t i f f s '
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 .
P l a i n t i f f s '
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 .
P l a i n t i f f s '
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
P l a i n t i f f s '
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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.
P l a i n t i f f s '
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
r e p r e s e n t e d
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
r e p r e s e n t e d
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
r e p r e s e n t e d
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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 .
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
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 ) .
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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 ) .
~~
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
m u n i c i p a l i t i e s
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
m u n i c i p a l i t i e s
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 -
8/9/2019 City of Chicago Motion to Dismiss Red Light Case
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
m u n i c i p a l i t i e s
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 .
P l a i n t i f f s '
complaint
t h a t