Thomann v. Department of State Police
2016 IL App (4th) 150936
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2013 Illinois enacted the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, creating a Board to consider objections to concealed-carry license applications and requiring applicants not pose a danger to themselves or others.
- Plaintiffs (Illinois Carry and three individuals) sued in 2014 alleging the Board’s objection procedures violated procedural due process and sought declaratory/injunctive relief and administrative review, plus attorney fees under the Illinois Civil Rights Act (740 ILCS 23/5(c)).
- The circuit court remanded numerous applications to the Board for reconsideration under revised procedures and dismissed plaintiffs’ declaratory count as moot; plaintiffs then filed a petition for attorney fees totaling about $181,390.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the fee petition arguing the Civil Rights Act’s fee-shifting provision did not apply (it covers discrimination claims based on race, color, national origin, or gender), and alternatively that sovereign immunity or lack of prevailing-party status barred fees.
- The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss the fee petition, finding (1) plaintiffs’ collateral attack on Board decisions was frivolous under the Administrative Review Law and (2) plaintiffs’ action was not an action to enforce a state constitutional right under section 5(c) of the Civil Rights Act.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the Civil Rights Act’s fee-shifting provision applies only to discrimination claims involving the listed suspect classes and not to plaintiffs’ due-process administrative-review action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §5(c)(2) of the Civil Rights Act entitles prevailing parties to fees for any claim "to enforce a right arising under the Illinois Constitution" | §5(c)(2) plainly awards fees for any prevailing claim arising under the Illinois Constitution, regardless of context | §5(c)(2) must be read in context — the Act targets discrimination claims based on race, color, national origin, or gender; fee-shifting limited to those claims | Held: §5(c) limited to discrimination claims involving listed suspect classes; §5(c)(2) interpreted to cover fees for constitutional claims only when tied to a statutory discrimination action under §5(a)/(b) |
| Whether plaintiffs were a "prevailing party" under §5(d) and thus entitled to fees (including via "catalyst" theory) | Plaintiffs obtained remands and procedural changes and thus prevailed or at least catalyzed change, so fees are warranted | Plaintiffs’ collateral declaratory count was frivolous (Administrative Review Law is sole remedy) and plaintiffs did not bring a covered discrimination claim | Held: Court did not reach full prevailing-party analysis because §5(c) inapplicable; collateral-attack/frivolous theory also supports dismissal as to catalyst claim |
| Whether sovereign immunity bars fee award under §5(c) | (Alternative) Even if §5(c) applied, sovereign immunity might not have been waived | §5(c) contains no express waiver of sovereign immunity as to these claims | Held: Appellate court affirmed on statutory-interpretation ground and did not need to resolve sovereign-immunity argument |
| Whether fee petition dismissal was improper because defendants raised an argument not advanced below | Plaintiffs argued defendants forfeited certain arguments by not raising them below | Defendants may urge any point supporting the judgment on appeal if factual basis was before trial court | Held: Defendants’ arguments considered; appellant bears burden of adequate record and failure to include hearing transcript undermines plaintiffs’ position |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mitchell, 395 Ill. App. 3d 161 (2009) (appellate-record and transcript requirements for review)
- Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363 (2003) (appellee may urge any point in support of judgment on appeal)
- Shaw v. Lorenz, 42 Ill. 2d 246 (1969) (appellee may rely on alternate grounds on appeal)
- City of Chicago v. Holland, 206 Ill. 2d 480 (2003) (appellate review examines judgment, not trial court reasoning)
- People v. Greco, 204 Ill. 2d 400 (2003) (appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)
- First American Bank Corp. v. Henry, 239 Ill. 2d 511 (2011) (statutes construed in context; plain language controls)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Earth Foods, Inc., 238 Ill. 2d 455 (2010) (do not read exceptions or limitations into plain statutory language)
- Ardt v. State of Illinois, 292 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (1997) (discusses fee allocation when statutory and constitutional claims overlap)