Gardner v. City Of Chicago, 1:11-cv-07792

Pl intents to rent residential condo units as short-term vacation properties in downtown Chicago; new Chicago ordinance imposes zoning restrictions and licensing for such rentals.
Plaintiffs filed state-law declaratory/injunctive relief and federal claims (due process, equal protection, takings) in Cook County circuit court.
Defendant City of Chicago removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) arguing federal claims were not ripe.
Defendant argued ripeness based on Williamson County and exhaustion requirements for takings, due process, and equal protection claims.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, citing San Remo Hotel to allow simultaneous state and federal consideration; defendant contested ripeness and sought dismissal.
Judge Gettleman granted remand to state court under Pullman abstention, finding state-court resolution possible and appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand is proper due to ripeness/exhaustion rules	Gardner argues federal claims are not ripe until state relief is exhausted.	City contends ripeness may be present despite exhaustion and seeks dismissal on substantive grounds if ripe.	Remand granted; ripeness not satisfied under current posture; abstention preferred.
Whether exhaustion exceptions apply to facial challenges	Equal protection and due process claims are facial challenges; not required to exhaust state remedies.	Exhaustion may still be required; options disputed, but generally applies.	Exhaustion not required for facial challenges; still remanded under Pullman.
Whether Pullman abstention warrants remand	State-court resolution could resolve federal issues indirectly via state-law routes.	Remand should be avoided if any federal claim is ripe; otherwise may proceed.	Remand proper under Pullman abstention to allow state-court adjudication with potential to obviate federal ruling.
Whether any exceptions render state remedies unavailable	Removal made state remedies unavailable; remedies could be ineffective due to procedural posture.	Exceptions not applicable here; state remedies remained potentially available.	Unavailability exception not satisfied; nonetheless remand authorized for Pullman abstention.

Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (takings ripeness depends on compensation remedy)
Muscarello v. Ogle Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 610 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion applies to takings-based equal protection claims)
Greenfield Mills, Inc. v. Macklin, 361 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion applies to substantive due process claims based on a taking)
River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 23 F.3d 164 (7th Cir. 1994) (state courts may hear simultaneous state and federal compensation claims)
San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (abstention allows federal court to remand for state resolution)
Yee v. Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (facial challenges need not be exhausted)
Pullman Co. v. Richards & Parnell, 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (federal courts should abstain where state-law issues could resolve federal questions)
Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167 (1959) (Pullman abstention is appropriate when state-court interpretation is possible)
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (relevance to state-law actions and federal constitutional questions)
Int’l Coll. of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, 153 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 1998) (illustrates jurisdictional abstention and remand principles)