Pro's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. v. City of Country Club Hills

• Decision Date: 20 September 2021
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-06087
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Parties: PRO'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL, INC., d/b/a BR BAR AND STEAKHOUSE, THARON BRADLEY, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF COUNTRY CLUB HILLS, an Illinois Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, MAYOR JAMES W. FORD and AARON JONES. Defendants.

PRO'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL, INC., d/b/a BR BAR AND STEAKHOUSE, THARON BRADLEY, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF COUNTRY CLUB HILLS, an Illinois Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, MAYOR JAMES W. FORD and AARON JONES. Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-06087

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

September 20, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John Robert Blakey United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Pro's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. (“Pro's Sports”), doing business as BR Bar and Steakhouse, and Tharon Bradley, the owner of Pro's Sports, filed a four-count amended complaint [14] on December 10, 2020, against Defendants the City of Country Club Hills, an Illinois Municipal Corporation and Body Politic, Mayor James W. Ford, and Aaron Jones, the Building Commissioner for Country Club Hills, alleging violation of due process pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count I), violation of free speech pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count II), and malicious prosecution (Counts III, IV). Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [17]. For the reasons explained below, this Court grants in part, and denies in part, the motion to dismiss.

I. Background

Pro's Sports is a bar and restaurant located in Country Club Hills. [14] ¶ 3. In 2008, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Country Club Hills alleging that the city's issuance of a liquor license imposing new restrictions upon Pro's Sports' operating hours violated Plaintiffs due process rights. Id. ¶ 13. In the subsequent proceedings, Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction that required the city to issue Plaintiffs a new liquor license restoring Pro's Sports previous operating hours. Id. ¶¶ 12-14; see also Pro's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. v. City of Country Club Hills, No. 08 C 6031, 2009 WL 995477, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2009), aff'd, 589 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2009). On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the injunction. [14] ¶ 14; see also Pro's Sports, 589 F.3d at 873.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs as punishment for the 2008 litigation and preliminary injunction. [14] ¶¶ 25-26. On June 19, 2020, Defendant Jones prepared ticket number B6425634 which stated that Plaintiff Pro's Sports exceeded occupancy levels. Id. ¶¶ 7, 27. Plaintiffs allege that Pro's Sports was closed at the time listed on the ticket. Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiffs further allege that on August 21, 2020, Defendant Jones prepared ticket number B6429000 for Pro's Sports' purported failure to comply with local and state government decrees requiring Pro's Sports to close by midnight, when, in fact, no such restrictions were in effect on the date Defendant Jones issued the ticket. Id. ¶¶ 31-32. In November 2020, a hearing officer dismissed both tickets. Id. ¶¶ 29-30, 34.

Separate from the alleged retaliation, Country Club Hills restricted Plaintiff Pro's Sports' opening hours in August 2020. Plaintiffs regularly renewed their liquor license from 2009 through 2020. Id. ¶ 15. Under the terms of the license, Pro's Sports may remain open until 2:00 a.m. Sundays through Thursdays and until 3:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Id. On August 24, 2020, during a regularly scheduled meeting, Country Club Hills' city council passed an ordinance requiring all liquor license holders in the city to close by 12:00 a.m. on Sundays through Fridays and by 1:00 a.m. on Saturdays to reduce the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Id. ¶ 16; Country Club Hills, Regular City Council Meeting Minutes for Meeting Held on August 24, 2020, at 2-3 (2020), https://static1.countryclubhills.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ CityCouncilMinutes20200824.pdf. The Country Club Hills city council passed the ordinance without providing Plaintiffs a hearing or other opportunity to contest the restrictions. [14] ¶ 17. Plaintiffs have lost income due to these restrictions. Id. ¶ 18.

Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on October 13, 2020 alleging a violation of their procedural due process rights, then filed an amended complaint on December 10, 2020. [1]; [14]. Plaintiffs now allege that Defendants subjected them to further retaliation after October 13, 2020, in response to both this case and the 2008 litigation. [14] ¶ 35.

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendant Jones ordered numerous corrections after inspections of Plaintiff Pro's Sports' kitchen, despite Plaintiffs having already passed all Cook County health inspections. Id. Defendant Jones also required Plaintiffs to make repairs to their newly installed roof, when, in fact, no state or local law required such repairs. Id. After a windstorm knocked down a tent covering Plaintiffs' outdoor dining area, Defendant Jones required Plaintiffs to obtain a permit to repair the tent, when, in fact, no permit was required when Plaintiffs first raised the tent in March 2020. Id. Lastly, after Plaintiffs built a fence around a patio adjacent to Pro's Sports, Defendant Jones required Plaintiffs to reduce the height of the fence from six feet to four feet, even though local ordinances permitted six-foot-high fences, and to remove and replace certain panels, when, in fact, no state law or local ordinance required such action. Id.

Plaintiffs seek remedies including declaratory relief for violations of their due process rights and freedom of speech, temporary and permanent injunctive relief, compensation for lost income, punitive damages, and costs and fees. Id. ¶¶ 22, 35, 45, 51.

II. Legal Standard

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [17]. To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” so the defendant has “fair notice” of the claim “and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A complaint must also contain “sufficient factual matter” to state a facially plausible claim to relief-one that “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). This plausibility standard “asks for more than a sheer possibility” that a defendant acted unlawfully. Sevugan v. Direct Energy Servs., LLC, 931 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schumacher, 844 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2016)). Thus, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action” and mere conclusory statements “do not suffice.” United States ex rel. Berkowitz v. Automation Aids, Inc., 896 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

In evaluating a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), this Court accepts all well-pled allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. This Court does not, however, accept a complaint's legal conclusions as true. Cornielsen v. Infinium Capital Mgmt., LLC, 916 F.3d 589, 603 (7th Cir. 2019).

Rule 12(b)(6) also limits this Court's consideration to “allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013). Courts may take judicial notice of documents that are part of the public record, such as municipal ordinances or minutes and agendas for city council meetings, without converting a 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgement. See, e.g., McBride v. McLean County, 397 F.Supp.3d 1198, 1206 (C.D. Ill. 2019).

III. Analysis

Defendants move to dismiss in its entirety Plaintiffs' first amended complaint alleging violation of due process (Count I), violation of free speech (Count II), and malicious prosecution (Counts III, IV). [14];[17]. This Court considers each count in order below.

A. Count I: Procedural Due Process Violation

The Fourteenth Amendment “explicitly prohibits” state actors “from depriving persons of ‘life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'” Manistee Apartments, LLC v. City of Chicago, 844 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1)). To properly allege a claim for “a procedural due process violation of a property right” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must “establish that there is (1) a cognizable property interest; (2) a deprivation of that property interest; and (3) a denial of due process.” Price v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi., 755 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Khan v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519, 527 (7th Cir. 2010)). New restrictions on the hours of operation linked to a specific liquor license can implicate cognizable property interests. See Pro's Sports, 589 F.3d at 870-72.

Here, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by reducing “the hours of operation under plaintiffs' liquor licenses . . . without a hearing or other process to contest said reduction.” [14] ¶ 20. These allegations, however, lack important context; namely, that the restrictions at issue here resulted from the legislative process. Country Club Hills' city council passed the ordinance that restricted opening hours for all establishments holding liquor licenses, not just Plaintiffs', at a regularly scheduled city council meeting held on August 24, 2020.^[1]

In context, Plaintiffs' claim fails. When a “legislature passes a law which affects a general class of persons, those persons have all received procedural due process-the legislative process.” Callahan v. City of Chicago, No. 12 C 362, 2012 WL 5989341, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2012) (quoting Brown v. Ret. Comm. of Briggs &...