City of Joliet v. New West, L.P.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10990
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Joliet seeks to condemn Evergreen Terrace for two reasons: dilapidation/crime and planned Riverwalk extension.
- New West and others sued under the Fair Housing Act and related statutes; the district court held condemnation proper and awarded just compensation to owners.
- This court previously held no blanket federal rule blocks condemnation and remanded for prompt resolution (2007, 2009).
- The trial lasted 100 days over more than a year; the district court concluded Joliet could take the property and pay $15,077,406 in just compensation.
- New West challenged the district court’s findings on dilapidation, discriminatory intent, and disparate impact; the district court found no FHAct violation and no discriminatory impact.
- New West sought mandamus and argued the Seventh Amendment required jury findings; the court declined to decide that issue here and affirmed the bench trial posture in the condemnation action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FH Act disparate impact vs. treatment in condemnation | New West argues closure harms blacks via disparate impact | Joliet contends no unjustified disparate impact; actions are not policy-based | No FH Act violation; findings supported; disparate-impact theory evaporates |
| Whether findings on dilapidation and crime are clearly erroneous | New West challenges depth of CJ’s factual inferences | District court’s extensive record supports conclusions | Findings not clearly erroneous; condemnation for dilapidation/crime upheld |
| Seventh Amendment concerns and jury trial rights in related actions | New West argues preclusion/Seventh Amendment issues require jury | Condemnation action under Illinois law yields bench trial; not premature for issue | Premature; appeal concerns condemnation action only; no right to jury on takings issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982) (clear-error standard for reviewing district court findings (preclusion))
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (clear-error review; sufficiency of factual findings)
- Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) (sequence of decision in single action; issue preclusion concerns)
- Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Texas Dept. of Housing & Community Affairs, 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) (unjustified disparate impact requires policy/necessity analysis; one-off decisions not enough)
- Joliet v. New West, L.P., 562 F.3d 830 (2009) (Seventh Circuit on remand; prior rulings about timing of condemnation)
- New West, L.P. v. Joliet, 491 F.3d 717 (2007) (Seventh Circuit on standard for block of condemnation by federal law)