222 East Chestnut St. Corp. v. Lakefront Realty Corp.
| Decision Date | 17 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 12224.,12224. |
| Citation | 256 F.2d 513 |
| Parties | 222 EAST CHESTNUT STREET CORPORATION, a corporation of Delaware, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKEFRONT REALTY CORPORATION, a corporation of Illinois; Lake Shore Club of Chicago, a corporation of Illinois; Northwestern University, a corporation of Illinois; George L. Ramsey, individually and as Commissioner of Buildings of City of Chicago; City of Chicago, a municipal corporation of Illinois; Richard J. Daley, individually and as Mayor of City of Chicago, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Joseph F. Elward, Edward S. Macie, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
John C. Melaniphy, Corp. Counsel, Sydney R. Drebin, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, Ill., Alban Weber, Evanston, Ill., John S. Miller, Howard B. Bryant, John W. G. Dooley, Ralph B. Mack, Chicago, Ill., for Lake Shore Club.
Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and MAJOR and PARKINSON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, in the District Court, sought to enjoin the defendants City of Chicago, a municipal corporation, and George L. Ramsey, as Commissioner of Buildings of City of Chicago, from issuing to defendant Lakefront Realty Corporation, or its agents, employees or contractors, a building permit to erect a three-and-four-story split level garage structure on its real estate and the defendant Lakefront Realty Corporation from erecting or attempting to so erect such structure. It also sought a declaratory judgment construing the Chicago Zoning Ordinance as meaning and providing that the erection of the garage structure is in violation of said ordinance and illegal. It further prayed for an abatement of any such alleged violation.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss supported by affidavit attaching thereto findings and order of the Zoning Board of Appeals authorizing the proposed construction as a valid use of the property in question; the judgment of the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois affirming and approving the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals; and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois, 222 East Chestnut St. Corp. v. Board of Appeals, 10 Ill.2d 130, 139 N.E.2d 221, affirming the judgment of the Superior Court.
On October 31, 1957 the District Court granted the motion of the defendants to dismiss and did so dismiss the plaintiff's complaint and action. This appeal followed, the plaintiff having filed written notice of appeal on November 29, 1957 appealing "from the final judgment entered in this cause on October 31, 1957, dismissing said complaint and action."
On April 25, 1958, after submission to and argument of counsel in this court, the plaintiff filed a written motion moving this court to dismiss the appeal and remand the cause to the District Court with directions to vacate its order dismissing the complaint and allow plaintiff to file an amendment thereto upon an entirely different theory. The motion did nothing more than allege what was fully known to the plaintiff when it originally filed its complaint and instituted its action on June 5, 1957.
Thereafter, on May 3, 1958, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its prior motion filed on April 25, 1958 "by praying, in the alternative, for additional relief, namely that (i) said Motion and the Amendment to Complaint be taken and considered with this appeal, with leave to defendants-appellees to file answer thereto within such time as the court may direct, and for (a) an order reversing the judgment of the court below, or (b) an order vacating the judgment of the court below with directions to allow plaintiff to file said Amendment, or (ii) for such other order in the court's discretion as will allow this matter to be disposed of on its merits, and upon such terms as the court may seem proper;".
When the District Court entered its order on October 31, 1957 dismissing plaintiff's action the plaintiff, as no responsive pleading had been served by the defendants, had, in the alternative, the right as a matter of course to amend its complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. or the right to stand on its complaint and appeal from the judgment of dismissal. The plaintiff appealed and by so doing elected to stand on its complaint. Asher v. Ruppa, 7 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 10.
The plaintiff briefed and argued this appeal upon the theory that its complaint was clearly sufficient and that the District Court committed reversible error when it dismissed. Plaintiff's motion filed April 25, 1958 incorporated the proposed amendment to the complaint. This motion was filed after the hearing of this appeal here. Apparently after argument of counsel plaintiff realized its complaint was inadequate and, by now seeking to amend, inferentially so admits. In no event, however, is the plaintiff seeking to amend defective allegations of jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28 U.S. C.A. § 1653. Chicago Stadium Corporation v. State of Indiana, 7 Cir., 1955, 220 F.2d 797, is, therefore, inapplicable. Plaintiff in its motion to amend its first motion filed on April 25, 1958 illustrates clearly the difference when it states that in Chicago Stadium this court held "that allegation in complaint that plaintiff is a resident of state of Illinois, and that defendants and each of them are residents of the state of Indiana was insufficient to allege federal jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of citizenship, but that plaintiffs should be permitted to amend complaint to show federal jurisdiction." That is permissible under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1653 and Chief Judge Duffy speaking for this court so held. That, however, is not the situation here.
The plaintiff cites United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 1958, 356 U.S. 227, 78 S.Ct. 674, 2 L.Ed.2d 721, and Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., Inc., 1958, 356 U.S. 335, 78 S.Ct. 764, 2 L.Ed.2d 806, as supporting its contention that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be liberally construed so that suits are determined on their merits and not on procedural technicalities. These cases had to do with appeals pertaining to whether notice of appeal was timely filed. We followed similar reasoning in Nolan v. Bailey, 7 Cir., 254 F.2d 638. Again those cases have nothing to do with the question here presented.
The plaintiff here is not attempting to avoid dismissal because it failed to file a timely notice of appeal or that the order appealed from is not a final judgment. On the contrary it is asking this court to dismiss its own appeal in order that it may amend a complaint, which it apparently now admits will not withstand the motion to dismiss, and be permitted to start all over in the lower court. This it seeks to do by alleging matters by way of amendment completely foreign to jurisdictional allegations and which matters were all known to the plaintiff long prior to the commencement of this action. There is no reasonable or logical foundation for such a request. Accordingly the motion of the plaintiff-appellant filed on April 25, 1958, as amended pursuant to its motion to amend filed on May 3, 1958, must be denied.
The plaintiff alleges that the proposed construction is in violation of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance and premises its right to maintain this action solely upon Ill.Rev.Stat., 1955, c. 24, § 73-9, which reads in part as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Keeler
...(1957); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); Egan v. Teets, 251 F.2d 571 (C.A.9, 1957); 222 East Chestnut v. Lakefront, 256 F.2d 513 (C.A.7, 1958); and Banks v. United States, 267 F.2d 535 (C.A.2, 1959) in support of the proposition that the judgment will be sust......
-
Asher v. Harrington
...liberal policy of granting amendments to the complaint. See Fuhrer v. Fuhrer, 292 F.2d 140 (7th Cir.1961); 222 E. Chestnut St. Corp. v. Lakefront Realty Corp., 256 F.2d 513 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 907, 79 S.Ct. 232, 3 L.Ed.2d 228 (1958). Ordinarily, conformance with this policy w......
-
Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez
...745 F.2d 1101, 1111 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054, 105 S.Ct. 1758, 84 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985); 222 East Chestnut St. Corp. v. Lakefront Realty Corp., 256 F.2d 513 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 907, 79 S.Ct. 232, 3 L.Ed.2d 228 In Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Indus., Inc., 590 F.......
-
Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc.
...a complaint may be amended once as a matter of right even after a motion to dismiss has been granted. 222 East Chestnut Street Corp. v. Lakefront Realty Corp., 256 F.2d 513 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied, 358 U.S. 907, 79 S.Ct. 232, 3 L.Ed.2d 228 (1958). However, while the law in this circuit is ......