LaBella Winnetka, Inc. v. Village of Winnetka
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26320
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- LaBella Winnetka, Inc. operated a restaurant in Winnetka, Illinois since 1993, leasing space from a private Landlord and holding a Village liquor license renewal annually from 1993 to 2007.
- In February 2007, roofing work by the Landlord caused major fire damage to LaBella's main dining room roof, while other areas remained undamaged.
- Village officials and Williams did not require a building permit for the Landlord's roof work and denied permits for LaBella to repair interior damage until the Landlord replaced the roof; they also refused partitioning and reopening in undamaged areas.
- Corner Cooks and Jerry's Restaurant (same building) were allowed to reopen in unaffected portions, while LaBella was not; Corner Cooks and Jerry's were described as “Friends of Doug.”
- O'Neil's Restaurant, another Friend of Doug, remained open during renovations; LaBella alleged its license was cancelled without cause, notice, or hearing after Corner Cooks/Jerry's obtained licenses.
- LaBella filed suit on November 26, 2007 asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for equal protection, substantive due process, procedural due process, and a state-law claim for interference with lease/prospective business.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class-of-one equal protection viability | LaBella was singled out compared to Friends of Doug with no rational basis. | Differences in circumstances between LaBella and comparators negate a similarly situated analysis; policy decisions need not be identical. | LaBella failed to plead a valid class-of-one claim; no similarly situated comparators alleged. |
| Substantive due process viability | LaBella's property interests were deprived by Village actions in a manner violating substantive due process. | No independent constitutional violation; state-law remedies may apply and LaBella did not plead inadequacy. | Claim dismissed; substantial pleading of lack of adequate state remedies waived and not proven. |
| Procedural due process viability regarding liquor license | Defendants' failure to mail renewal forms and alleged license cancellation deprived due process. | Failure to mail renewal forms did not deprive LaBella of its property interest; cancellation allegations insufficiently pled; post-deprivation remedy required. | Procedural due process claim failed; no adequate notice and no meaningful post-deprivation remedy pleaded. |
| Waiver and notice pleading | Adequacy of state-law remedies and license-cancellation details were sufficiently pled. | Waiver and lack of specific pleading bars the claim. | LaBella waived adequacy-of-state-remedies issue and failed to plead a concrete basis for due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olech v. Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one equal protection requires a rational basis for differential treatment)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (equal protection extends to government actions; not always applicable to nonpublic policy decisions)
- Reget v. City of La Crosse, 595 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2010) (similarly situated requirement in class-of-one claims)
- Ind. State Teachers Ass'n v. Bd. of School Comm'rs of City of Indianapolis, 101 F.3d 1179 (7th Cir. 1996) (reliance on policy revision not equal protection violation)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (procedural due process post-deprivation remedy rule for random, unauthorized acts)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (constitutional notice and process for property interests under post-deprivation framework)
- Doherty v. City of Chicago, 75 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 1996) (waiver and adequacy of state remedies considerations in §1983 claims)
- Pro's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. v. City of Country Club Hills, 589 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2009) (adequacy of post-deprivation remedies in procedural due process)