Lyons Township ex rel Kielczynski v. Village of Indian Head Park
2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 161
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Relator John Kielczynski (a Lyons Township resident and retired officer) filed a qui tam suit under the Illinois False Claims Act alleging Village of Indian Head Park overbilled Lyons Township for contracted police hours and retained ticket revenue owed to Lyons.
- Relator obtained most supporting documents via FOIA responses from Indian Head Park and some from Lyons Township, and based his complaint on those records and his policing experience.
- The Village moved to dismiss under section 2-619 arguing the Act’s public-disclosure bar applied (because relator relied on FOIA-produced records) and that the Tort Immunity Act (sections 2-106/2-107) insulated the Village.
- The circuit court dismissed with prejudice, finding relator’s claims barred by the public-disclosure provision and that municipal immunity applied.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded: it held the public-disclosure bar did not apply because the FOIA disclosures came from the alleged wrongdoer (Indian Head) rather than the government entity allegedly defrauded (Lyons Township), and it held the Tort Immunity Act did not shield the Village from written misrepresentations arising from the contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the False Claims Act public-disclosure bar applies when relator relied on FOIA records produced by the alleged wrongdoer (Indian Head) | Kielczynski: FOIA records from Indian Head do not qualify as a "State report" for Lyons, the entity allegedly defrauded; thus the public-disclosure bar does not apply | Indian Head: "State" is broadly defined and FOIA responses qualify as State reports; complaint is based on publicly disclosed material and must be dismissed | Reversed dismissal — public-disclosure bar did not apply because a "State report" means a report of the government unit allegedly defrauded (Lyons), and most FOIA records came from Indian Head, not Lyons |
| Whether Schindler (FOIA response = report) compels dismissal under Illinois law post‑amendment | Kielczynski: Schindler is distinguishable and Illinois statute was amended to limit public‑report disclosures to the defrauded unit | Indian Head: Schindler supports treating FOIA responses as reports that trigger the bar | Held: Schindler (federal, pre‑amendment analysis) does not control here; Illinois 2012 amendment narrows "State report" to mean the unit being defrauded |
| Whether section 2‑106 of the Tort Immunity Act immunizes the Village from liability for misrepresentations underlying the fraud claim | Kielczynski: 2‑106 protects only oral promises/misrepresentations; contract/written misrepresentations are not covered | Indian Head: 2‑106 shields municipalities from negligent or intentional misrepresentations, oral or written | Held: 2‑106 immunity is limited to oral promises/misrepresentations (adjective "oral" modifies both nouns); it does not bar claims based on written contract misrepresentations |
| Whether section 2‑107 (immunity for provision of information) bars the suit | Kielczynski: 2‑107 does not apply to these contract/fraud allegations | Indian Head: alternatively, 2‑107 shields provision of information in writing or electronically | Held: 2‑107 inapplicable on these facts; municipal actions alleged are not the sort of immune "provision of information" covered |
Key Cases Cited
- Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148 (discusses 2‑619 dismissal standard)
- Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359 (reviewing section 2‑619 procedural standards)
- Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112 (standard on genuine issue of material fact for dismissal)
- Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401 (FOIA responses held to be "reports" under pre‑amendment federal FCA public‑disclosure bar)
- Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (led to narrowing of public‑disclosure sources in FCA amendments)
- United States ex rel. Moore & Co. v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC, 812 F.3d 294 (Third Circuit holding FOIA responses can remain reports post‑amendment in facts where disclosures came from the defrauded federal entity)
- United States ex rel. Kraxberger v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 756 F.3d 1075 (Eighth Circuit applying Schindler where FOIA responses came from the defrauded federal agency)