Cui v. City of Elmhurst, 1:14-cv-08330

Background

Plaintiff Marvin E. Cui (later joined by Ruiying Fei) filed suit after criminal proceedings and related conduct involving a dishonored check and interactions with the Elmhurst Police and Lynn and Jon Kubycheck.
Case removed to federal court; multiple prior amended complaints and two earlier dismissals of a § 1985 conspiracy claim.
Fourth Amended Complaint asserted § 1983 and § 1985 federal claims and several Illinois state-law tort claims; Defendants moved to dismiss.
On February 21, 2017 the court dismissed all federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, remanding remaining claims to state court.
Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of federal claims and for leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint to reassert lack-of-probable-cause dependent claims and to replead the § 1985 conspiracy claim.
The court considered whether prior pleadings could cure omissions in the Fourth Amended Complaint, whether officers had probable cause to arrest for attempted deceptive practices (720 ILCS 5/17–1), and whether proposed amendments would be futile or reflect repeated failure to cure defects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal of § 1985 conspiracy (Count III) should be reconsidered	Cui says conspiracy allegations were intended and appeared in earlier complaints but were omitted from the Fourth Amended Complaint inadvertently	Defendants rely on the absence of any allegation of an agreement in the operative Fourth Amended Complaint	Denied — court refuses to consider earlier, superseded pleadings; § 1985 claim properly dismissed for lack of agreement allegation
Whether false arrest claim (Count II) should be reinstated	Cui argues court overlooked facts (e.g., officer admissions about settlement, alleged alteration of a statement) that undermine probable cause	Defendants argue officers had probable cause based on check, bank dishonor notices, attempts to cash, demand letter, certified receipt, and other investigative facts	Denied — court finds officers reasonably could infer intent to defraud under Illinois law; no reconsideration warranted
Whether plaintiffs may file a Fifth Amended Complaint to revive claims tied to lack of probable cause	Cui seeks leave to amend to reassert claims dependent on lack of arguable probable cause and to replead § 1985 with particularity	Defendants oppose as futile and prejudicial given prior dismissals and the court’s probable-cause finding	Denied — amendment would be futile as court’s probable-cause ruling stands and § 1985 previously dismissed twice; repeated failure to cure defects justifies denial
Whether reconsideration standard is met (change in law/facts or error)	Cui contends the court misunderstood or overlooked dispositive facts and that omission was inadvertent	Defendants contend no intervening change in law or facts and no basis for reconsideration	Denied — motion to reconsider disfavored; plaintiffs offered no new controlling law or proper newly available evidence sufficient to justify reconsideration

Key Cases Cited

Keri v. Bd. of Tr. of Purdue Univ., 458 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2006) (elements required to plead a § 1985 conspiracy)
Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (noting limitations of Keri on other grounds)
Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2017) (an amended pleading supersedes and replaces earlier complaints)
Wellness Cmty.-Nat’l v. Wellness House, 70 F.3d 46 (7th Cir. 1995) (superseded pleadings cannot cure defects in an amended complaint absent specific incorporation)
United States v. Ligas, 549 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2008) (standards for reconsideration)
In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1996) (court will not consider arguments/evidence that should have been presented earlier)
Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2009) (grounds to deny leave to amend: undue delay, repeated failure to cure, futility)
Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) (same)
Neita v. City of Chi., 830 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2016) (probable cause is a defense to § 1983 false-arrest claim)
Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2012) (same)
Vargas v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 272 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2001) (futility as a basis to deny leave to amend)