AGOLF, LLC v. Village of Arlington Heights
409 Ill. App. 3d 211
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Agolf, LLC sued the Village of Arlington Heights for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding a redeveloment project involving a TIF district that included the Plaza.
- Capital Fitness previously sued the Village over the same TIF designation and project, resulting in a trial court finding the TIF ordinance proper, which was affirmed on appeal to the Illinois appellate court and supreme court denied review.
- Arlin-Golf also challenged the TIF district in state court; it later pursued federal litigation, and res judicata was upheld against Arlin-Golf based on the prior state suit.
- Plaintiff amended its complaint in 2007 to add constitutional claims challenging the TIF statute as vague on its face and as applied, while a stay in Capital Fitness’s case occurred during proceedings.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment contending res judicata barred Agolf’s original counts and its constitutional claims were barred by the canons of res judicata due to privity with Capital Fitness, which the trial court granted.
- The appellate court held that res judicata bars Agolf’s entire action, including the constitutional claims, because there was final adjudication, identity of action, and privity with Capital Fitness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Agolf's original counts | Agolf contends privity fails; the interests differ as landlord-tenant relation. | Agolf and Capital Fitness share privity and same operative facts; thus res judicata bars. | Res judicata bars Agolf's original counts. |
| Whether privity existed between Agolf and Capital Fitness | Capital Fitness's interests were limited to tenants, not plaza ownership; privity lacking. | Capital Fitness and Agolf shared mutual interests in Plaza and TIF outcome; adequately represented. | Privity existed; Capital Fitness adequately represented Agolf's interest. |
| Whether Agolf’s constitutional claims could survive res judicata | Constitutional claims arise from different legal theories and thus should not be barred. | Constitutional issues arose from same operative facts; could have been raised in Capital Fitness. | Constitutional claims barred; immaterial that they were framed as different theories. |
| Whether remand for constitutional issues was appropriate | If constitutional claims are barred, remand should be granted to address merits. | Same operative facts; theories still part of one action; remand inappropriate. | Remand denied; constitutional claims barred by res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunset Ridge Sch. Dist. No. 29 v. Village of Northbrook, 295 Ill.App.3d 909 (1998) (privity analysis and identity of interests in res judicata)
- Nowak v. St. Rita High School, 197 Ill.2d 381 (2001) (elements of res judicata; final judgment, identity of cause, and privity)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill.2d 290 (1998) (transactions test; same operative facts sustain identity of action)
- Furgatch v. Butler, 188 Ill.App.3d 1060 (1988) (new theories arising from same operative facts barred by res judicata)
- Purmal v. Robert N. Wadington & Associates, 354 Ill.App.3d 715 (2004) (privity and scope of res judicata; automatic extension to related claims)
- St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 404 Ill.App.3d 505 (2010) (privity in property-right contexts and representation in prior actions)
- Capital Fitness Arlington Heights, Inc. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 394 Ill.App.3d 913 (2009) (appellate review affirming trial court regarding TIF designation and statutory factors)