Cahn v. Highland Park, 1:11-cv-06082

Cahn sued the City of Highland Park, Rotering, and Blue over fence reconstruction on his property.
May 2009 permit allowed replacement fence; December 2009 inspection approved fence.
Klairmont, neighbor, alleged Code violation prompting investigation by Blue.
Rotering intervened to reopen the complaint; multiple inspections occurred in 2010.
September 2010 violation notice; December 2010 measurements/photos taken with consent; Judge Good dismissed in 2011; City appealed.
Court previously dismissed Count I with prejudice in 2012; this opinion addresses the amended complaint and motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count I plausibly states a Fourth Amendment entry claim	Cahn alleges unlawful entry and damages to property	Inspections and measurements did not damage property	Count I dismissed with prejudice
Whether Count II states a class-of-one equal protection claim	Cahn was uniquely prosecuted; no rational basis	No adequate pleading of intentional disparate treatment	Count II denied; claim survives
Whether Count III states a malicious prosecution claim	Proceedings terminated in plaintiff’s favor; fraudless termination alleged	Prosecution termination not shown; improper for now	Count III dismissed without prejudice
Whether Count IV states a trespass claim	City actions and modifications constituted trespass; interference with possession	Modifications voluntary; no interference shown	Count IV dismissed without prejudice
Whether Count VI states a retaliation claim under §1983	Actions were motivated by First Amendment activity in city council participation	Need to show deprivation deterred a person of ordinary firmness	Count VI survives; retaliation elements met

Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2012) (pleading standard relaxed for class-of-one claims; no need to identify specific comparators)
Holland v. City of Chicago, 643 F.3d 248 (7th Cir. 2011) (malicious prosecution framework requires favorable termination and other elements)
Reger Dev., LLC v. Nat'l City Bank, 592 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2010) (pleading standards under Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal guidance)
Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology, Intern., 1685 N.E.2d 1347 (Ill. 1997) (favorable termination principle in malicious-prosecution contexts)
Loftus v. Mingo, 511 N.E.2d 203 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (interference with possession required for trespass)
Geller v. Brownstone Condominium Ass'n, 402 N.E.2d 807 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980) (voluntary modifications do not create trespass)
Thomas v. Fuerst, 803 N.E.2d 619 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (objective standard for extreme and outrageous conduct (IIED))
McGrath v. Fahey, 533 N.E.2d 806 (Ill. 1988) (consideration of power or authority in IIED analysis)
Sornberger v. City of Knoxville, Ill., 434 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2006) (elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress)
Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2008) (First Amendment retaliation standard)
Massey v. Johnson, 457 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006) (causation/motivation standard for retaliation)