Arlin-Golf, LLC v. Village of Arlington Heights
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1188
7th Cir.2011Background
- Arlin-Golf and its partners purchased the Center in June 2001; the Village announced a TIF district including the Center on January 22, 2002.
- The Village enacted a July 2002 TIF ordinance stating the Center would be condemned and redeveloped in six months, but the plan was never executed.
- From 2002–2008, the Village allegedly discouraged tenants, urged lease terminations, announced repeated condemnations, and claimed it owned the Center when it did not.
- In 2006, Arlin-Golf sued in state court alleging improper TIF implementation and a potential takings violation under Illinois law.
- In 2008, the parties settled; Arlin-Golf dismissed the state suit with prejudice, and the Village agreed to purchase the Center for $1.6 million; the sale closed March 4, 2009.
- On March 27, 2009, Arlin-Golf and partners filed this federal case alleging multiple federal and state-law claims based on the same operative facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the federal action | Arlin-Golf: not identical causes of action | Village: identity of cause of action under res judicata | Res judicata applies; second action barred |
| Whether the settlement forecloses the federal claims | Settlement voidable, not void | Settlement final and enforceable | Settlement valid; res judicata applies to bar the federal action |
| Whether res judicata is unfair under circumstances | Claims not identical; unfairness shown | Discounted; no authority shown | Unwaived/insufficient, no reversible error |
| Whether the district court abused by denying leave to amend | Amendment could cure deficiencies | Amendment would be futile or unduly delayed | No reversible error; amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Nowak v. St. Rita High Sch., 197 Ill.2d 381 (2001) (illinois res judicata elements and scope)
- Licari v. City of Chicago, 298 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2002) (transactional approach to res judicata; same facts, different theories allowed)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill.2d 290 (2000) (same transaction test for identity of claims)
- Altair Corp. v. Grand Premier Trust & Inv., Inc., 318 Ill.App.3d 57 (2000) (pragmatic transactional approach; factors for same action)
- Foster v. DeLuca, 545 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2008) (leave to amend and futility standards)