Haynes v. City of Chi., 12 C 2980
| Decision Date | 12 August 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12 C 2980,12 C 2980 |
| Parties | Jeffery Haynes, Plaintiff, v. City of Chicago, Ed H. Smith, and Mort Levy, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jeffery Haynes brings this action against the City of Chicago (the "City"), former 28th Ward Alderman Ed Smith ("Alderman Smith"), and Mort Levy. Haynes asserts claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and several state law theories. The City and Alderman Smith moved to dismiss Haynes' complaint for failure to state a claim. R. 15. Levy joined the motion. R. 26. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted.
This case involves Haynes' attempt to develop a shopping center and grocery store in Alderman Smith's former ward on the west side of Chicago. Haynes' plan called for the City, using tax increment financing, to acquire various privatelyowned parcels of land through eminent domain and then sell those parcels (along with some parcels already owned by the City) to Haynes. Over the course of several years, Haynes spent approximately $160,000 planning the project. But after more than two years of consistent support from Alderman Smith, Haynes was ultimately shut out of the project after Alderman Smith threw his support to a competing plan that did not involve Haynes. Haynes alleges that Alderman Smith changed his tune because Haynes refused his requests for a $5,000 "contribution."
Haynes first approached Alderman Smith in February 2007 with a proposal to develop a shopping center. The proposed location for the shopping center was in an area covered by the Madison/Austin Tax Increment Financing Redevelopment Project Area Redevelopment Plan ("TIF Plan"). The TIF Plan was originally adopted by the City in 1999 to encourage private development in the area. Alderman Smith supported Haynes' proposal. He wrote to the City's Department of Planning & Development ("Planning Department") to express his formal support for Haynes to acquire land owned by the City and asked the Planning Department to begin the eminent domain process for several privately-owned parcels.
In April 2007, Haynes submitted a detailed "Negotiated Sale Application" to purchase certain City-owned property. A Negotiated Sale Application must be approved by the Planning Department's Community Development Commission ("CDC"). Once approved, the applicant and the City negotiate a "Redevelopment Agreement," which is then submitted to the City Council for approval. None of thathappened here—Haynes' Negotiated Sale Application was never approved, and Haynes and the City never negotiated or executed a Redevelopment Agreement.
Over the next year, Haynes and Alderman Smith discussed and agreed upon various changes to the proposed project. Although Haynes' initial focus was to develop a shopping center, in March 2008 Alderman Smith suggested including a grocery store as an anchor tenant because the area had been identified as a "food desert" that did not have access to fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats.
Also in March 2008, the CDC passed a resolution authorizing the City to acquire certain privately-owned property for the project pursuant to the TIF Plan. In May 2008, the City Council's Committee on Housing and Real Estate voted to approve the resolution. Around the same time, Alderman Smith again wrote to the Planning Department expressing his formal support for Haynes to acquire land owned by the City. He also asked the Planning Department to begin the eminent domain process for several additional privately-owned parcels. Haynes twice met with the Planning Department to provide updates on his project.
In July 2008, Haynes reached out to Levy, the President of Moo & Oink grocery stores, about the possibility of using Moo & Oink as an anchor tenant in the project. In August 2008, Haynes and Alderman Smith met with Levy and other Moo & Oink representatives. This was when Haynes' plans began to unravel. Moo & Oink asked questions about Haynes' financing that Haynes felt were "inappropriate" and "borderline racist." Moo & Oink also asked about the possibilityof buying the property itself and simply hiring Haynes to build the store. After the meeting, Haynes began reaching out to several other grocery store chains.
In March 2009, Alderman Smith called and told Haynes that Levy had just left his office and that Levy was talking to the Planning Department about building a Moo & Oink store on the project site without Haynes' involvement. Alderman Smith relayed to Haynes that he had told Levy that Moo & Oink could not do anything at the project site without Haynes. That same month, Alderman Smith once again wrote to the Planning Department expressing his formal support for Haynes to acquire and develop land owned by the City.
A few weeks later, Alderman Smith and several staff members from the Planning Department told Haynes that Moo & Oink had indicated that it would like to a build a store on the project site with Haynes as the developer. Haynes and his team then met with Levy and his team to discuss and plan for the project. But all was not well. Moo & Oink informed Haynes that it still wished to own the property where the grocery store would be built. The relationship deteriorated from there as neither side was willing to compromise on who would own the property.
Haynes then alleges that from June through August 2009, Alderman Smith demanded a $5,000 "contribution" from Haynes. Alderman Smith eventually gave Haynes an August 17, 2009 deadline for providing the contribution. Haynes construed these demands as a request for a bride in order to secure Alderman Smith's continued support for the project and refused to comply.
On August 23, 2009, six days after the deadline for Haynes to provide the $5,000 contribution, Haynes told Alderman Smith that he had two other grocery stores—Lemington's and One Stop—interested in the project. But Alderman Smith responded that only Moo & Oink could build a grocery store in his ward. The next day, Haynes met with Alderman Smith, the Planning Department, and Moo & Oink. At the meeting, Alderman Smith announced that Moo & Oink could build a grocery store on the project site with or without Haynes' involvement. This meeting led Haynes to try working with Moo & Oink one last time so that the time and money he had spent planning the project would not go to waste.
On August 28, 2009, the City's Department of Community Development sent Haynes a letter requesting various information on the project in order to initiate a negotiated sale and/or Tax Increment Financing application process. On October 8, 2009, the Department of Community Development sent Haynes another letter requesting additional information, again in order to initiate a negotiated sale and/or Tax Increment Financing application process.
On October 24, 2009, Levy sent Haynes an email notifying him that Moo & Oink would purchase land at the project site from the City and develop it without Haynes. Levy claimed that Haynes had requested to withdraw from the project because he did not have financing (Haynes denies this). The email also stated that Levy had met with Alderman Smith and that Alderman Smith would support Moo & Oink's efforts to build a grocery store without Haynes.
From that point on, Haynes was on the outside looking in. Haynes alleges that Moo & Oink proceeded with plans to build a grocery store and that the City removed Haynes from the project without notice. Haynes tried raising the issue with Mayor Daley and various members of his staff from 2009 through 2011. The Mayor's staff attempted to facilitate some discussions between Haynes and Wal-Mart officials as an alternative, but those talks did not go anywhere.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. See, e.g., Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). A plaintiff's complaint "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "In evaluating the sufficiency of the complaint, [courts] view it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, taking as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and making all possible inferences from the allegations in the plaintiff's favor." AnchorBank, FSB v. Hofer, 649 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2011). Pro se complaints are liberally construed and are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Munson v. Gaetz, 673 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2012).
In Counts I and II, Haynes asserts civil RICO claims against Alderman Smith and Levy. Haynes alleges that Alderman Smith violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) and that Alderman Smith and Levy each violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
At the outset, the Court notes that RICO Gamboa v. Velez, 457 F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Jennings v. Auto Meter Prods., Inc., 495 F.3d 466, 472 (7th Cir. 2007). "RICO has not federalized every state common-law cause of action available to remedy business deals gone sour." Midwest Grinding Co. v. Spitz, 976 F.2d 1016, 1025 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909, 918 (7th Cir. 2010); Dremco, Inc. v. Diver, 2013 WL 1873917, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2013).
18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) provides, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial