See v. Illinois Gaming Board
170 N.E.3d 195
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Christopher See, a Gaming Special Agent, filed internal grievances alleging corruption by the Illinois Gaming Board and Illinois State Police and was placed on administrative leave and examined for fitness for duty.
- In February 2017 See sued in federal court asserting First Amendment, Ethics Act (state), and ADA claims against the Gaming Board and officials; he conceded the Eleventh Amendment defense as to the Ethics Act claim and that count was dismissed from federal court.
- The remaining federal First Amendment and ADA claims proceeded and the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; See appealed.
- In April 2019 See filed a state-court complaint asserting only the Ethics Act claim against the same (or privity) defendants; defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) arguing res judicata/claim preclusion and claim splitting.
- The Cook County circuit court granted dismissal on res judicata grounds; See appealed, arguing the federal Eleventh Amendment dismissal was jurisdictional (not on the merits) and equitable considerations should permit the state suit.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding See’s state Ethics Act claim was barred by claim preclusion/res judicata and noting forfeiture of certain appellate arguments for briefing violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court's dismissal of the Ethics Act claim under the Eleventh Amendment is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata | The Eleventh Amendment dismissal was jurisdictional (not on the merits), so it cannot preclude See from litigating the state Ethics Act claim in state court | Regardless of nomenclature, See proceeded in federal court and obtained final judgment on related claims; claim preclusion bars relitigation of claims arising from the same operative facts | Court held res judicata/claim preclusion barred See’s state claim — See’s choice to litigate in federal court and the subsequent final judgment on other claims prevents relitigation in state court |
| Whether claim-splitting doctrine bars See from filing the Ethics Act claim in state court after litigating related claims in federal court | Defendants forced the split by raising Eleventh Amendment immunity; federal court could have had jurisdiction | See chose the limited federal forum instead of state court with broader jurisdiction and thus cannot later split claims; he could have consolidated or voluntarily dismissed and refiled | Court held See’s decision to proceed in federal court and not to refile after dismissing the Eleventh Amendment issue amounts to impermissible claim splitting |
| Whether equitable considerations permit relitigation in state court | See urged equitable relief so he may have a day in state court on the Ethics Act claim | Defendants: equitable considerations do not overcome res judicata/claim preclusion and See’s strategic choices | Court rejected equitable arguments and refused to excuse claim preclusion |
| Whether appellant forfeited arguments by failing to adequately raise them on appeal | See raised some Eleventh Amendment and related arguments only in reply or orally | Defendants argued See’s briefing violated Rule 341 and forfeited issues | Court found forfeiture for inadequate briefing and reliance on arguments not presented in opening brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana Protection & Advocacy Servs. v. Indiana Family & Social Servs. Admin., 603 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2010) (overview of Eleventh Amendment and limits on suits against states)
- Palka v. City of Chicago, 662 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2011) (res judicata elements and identity-of-claim analysis)
- Migra v. Warren Cmty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) (claim preclusion prevents subsequent suits for matters that should have been litigated earlier)
- Humphrey v. Tharaldson Enters., Inc., 95 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 1996) (claim preclusion when plaintiff chose limited forum despite availability of broader forum)
- Higgins v. Mississippi, 217 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 2000) (discusses Eleventh Amendment as sometimes an affirmative defense rather than strict jurisdictional bar)
- Harper Plastics, Inc. v. Amoco Chem. Corp., 657 F.2d 939 (7th Cir. 1981) (dismissal for want of jurisdiction does not necessarily preclude litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (purposes of res judicata: conserve resources, prevent inconsistent results)