Wallace v. City of Wash., Ill., an Ill. Mun. Corp.
| Decision Date | 25 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14-cv-1457,14-cv-1457 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
| Parties | ANDREW WALLACE, JR., SHERRY WALLACE, and ANTONIO GILES, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF WASHINGTON, ILLINOIS, an Illinois municipal corporation, GARY M. MARINER, as an individual and Mayor of the City of Washington, BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, an Official Board of the City of Washington, DON VOLK, as an individual and as Chief of Police for the City of Washington Police Department, JEFF STEVENSON, as an individual and as a Commander for the City of Washington Police Department, UNKNOW SWORN OFFICERS, City of Washington Police Department, and GRANITE BROADCASTING CORP., d/b/a WEEK-TV, aka CHANNEL 35, a registered Illinois corporation, Defendants. |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court for a Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to Strike (d/e 17) and Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Defendant GraniteBroadcasting Corporation Third Affirmative Defense (d/e 27) (Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike). For the reasons set forth below, this Court recommends that Defendants' Motion to Strike should be ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike should be DENIED.
Plaintiffs Andrew Wallace, Jr., Sherry Wallace, and Antonio Giles allege that they had a permit from Defendant City of Washington, Illinois (City), to conduct salvage and recycling operations in the City after the City was hit by a tornado on November 17, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that on or about December 10, 2013, a cameraman employed by Defendant Granite Broadcasting Corporation (Granite) video recorded the Plaintiffs conducting salvage operations in the City. The Plaintiffs allege that the cameraman reported the Plaintiffs to the City Police Department as individuals engaged in looting. Plaintiffs allege unknown officers of the City's Police Department wrongfully arrested Plaintiffs without probable cause for looting. The arresting officers also did not have a warrant to arrest the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs allege that they were wrongfully detained for 72 hours. See Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (d/e 15) (Amended Complaint), ¶¶ 13-47.
The Plaintiffs allege that Granite broadcasted the video recording of the Plaintiffs' salvage operations and subsequent arrest. The Plaintiffs allege that Granite falsely reported in December 2013 that the Plaintiffs were engaged in looting. The Plaintiffsallege that Defendant Jeff Stevenson, a Commander in the City's Police Department, stated in the television news reports that the Plaintiffs were arrested for looting without disclosing that the Plaintiffs had a valid permit from the City. The Plaintiffs allege that they have never been indicted or charged by information with any crime as a result of this incident. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 45-50, 73-80.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs brought an action in Tazewell County, Illinois, Circuit Court (State Court) on November 5, 2014. The original Complaint named the City, City Mayor Gary M. Mariner, City Police Chief Don Volk, and Commander Stevenson as Defendants (collectively the City Defendants). Notice of Removal (d/e 1), Exhibit A, Complaint at Law (Complaint). The Complaint alleged claims for false arrest and detention without probable cause and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Complaint, Counts I and II.
On December 2, 2014, City Defendants removed this action to this Court based on federal question removal jurisdiction. Notice of Removal, ¶ 4; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, and1441. The Notice of Removal stated that the false arrest without probable cause claim stated a claim under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Notice of Removal, ¶ 4. On December 2, 2014, the City Defendants mailed the Plaintiffs written notice of the Notice of Removal and filed a copy of the Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the State Court. Defendants' Notice of Filing Notice of Removal (d/e 2). The Plaintiffs received notice of the removal by December 4, 2014. See Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike,Exhibit B, Plaintiffs' Motion to File Amended Complaint with Additional Defendant and Claims Relevant to the Issue at Bar as Outline in the Complaint (State Court Motion to Amend), ¶¶ 1-2. Once these procedural steps were accomplished, the removal was effected and the State Court could not proceed with the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
The Plaintiffs, however, continued to file documents in the State Court. On December 4, 2014, Plaintiffs moved in State Court to voluntarily dismiss this case. The State Court purported to allow the request on December 11, 2014. On December 15, 2014, Plaintiffs moved in State Court to vacate their request for voluntary dismissal and moved to amend the Complaint to join Granite as an additional defendant and to add defamation claims against the City Defendants and Granite. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, Exhibit B, Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1301 and State Court Motion to Amend.
On December 17, 2014, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (d/e 4). On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiffs responded and requested leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Cause of Action (d/e 6); Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (d/e 7) (Federal Motion to Amend). The Federal Motion to Amend did not disclose either the new parties to be joined or the new claims to be added. This Court granted the Federal Motion to Amend. Text Order entered January 12, 2015. The Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint on January 18, 2015.
The Amended Complaint added Granite and the City Board of Police Commissioners as Defendants and added the following claims: a claim against all Defendants for defamation (Count II); a claim against the City Defendants and the City Board of Police Commissioners for failure to properly train employees (Count IV); a claim against the City for breach of contract (Count V); and a claim against all Defendants for conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986 (Count VI). Amended Complaint, Counts II, IV, V, and VI. The Amended Complaint alleged that Defendants Mariner, Volk, and Stevenson (Individual Defendants) were being sued in their official and individual capacities. Amended Complaint, ¶ 11. The Plaintiffs included a prayer for punitive damages in the Count I § 1983 false arrest claim, and in the Count II defamation claim. Amended Complaint, at 10 and 12.1
Granite answered the Amended Complaint on February 20, 2015. Granite alleged as an affirmative defense the Illinois one-year statute of limitations on defamation claims. Defendant Granite Broadcasting Corporation's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (d/e 24), Third Affirmative Defense; see 735 ILCS 5/13-201.
The City Defendants now move to strike the official capacity claims against the Individual Defendants and the prayers for punitive damages claims against them inCounts I (§1983 False Arrest and False Imprisonment) and II (Defamation). Defendants' Motion to Strike, at 1. The Plaintiffs move to strike Granite's Third Affirmative Defense of the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, at 1.
The Court addresses the Motions separately.
A party may move to strike an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Motions to strike are generally disfavored because they are often used only to delay proceedings. Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989). The Court, therefore, should carefully consider any request to strike.
The City Defendants first ask to strike all claims brought against the Individual Defendants in their official capacities. The City Defendants argue that the official capacity claims are redundant of the claims brought directly against the City. The City Defendants are correct. Official capacity claims against individuals are really claims against the entity for which the individuals are employed. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 (1985). The City is also named as a Defendant in every claim brought against the Individual Defendants. The official capacity claims are redundant. The Court recommends that the official capacity claims against the Individual Defendants be stricken.
Striking the official capacity claims, however, will not strike any claim against the City and will not strike any claim against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities. The Plaintiffs brought all claims against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities. Thus, all claims against all of the City Defendants will proceed even though the official capacity claims against the Individuals are properly stricken as redundant.2
The City Defendants also seek to strike the prayers for punitive damages against them as alleged in Counts I and II. The punitive damages claims against the City should be stricken. The Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages against the City in Count I under § 1983. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981). Illinois law also bars punitive damage claims against the City in the defamation claim in Count II, which is based on Illinois law. 745 ILCS 10/2-102. The prayers for punitive damages against the City in Counts I and II should be stricken.
Punitive damages are available under § 1983 against the Individual Defendants because they are being sued in their individual capacities. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. at 167 n. 13. The prayer for punitive damages against the Individual Defendants in the § 1983 claim in Count I should not be stricken.
The Count II defamation claim against the Individual Defendants is also governed by Illinois law. The punitive damage prayer in Count II against Defendant Mariner isbarred by Illinois...
To continue reading
Request your trial