Village of East Dundee v. Village of Carpentersville
58 N.E.3d 155
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- East Dundee sued Carpentersville and Wal‑Mart after Wal‑Mart closed an East Dundee store and sought TIF‑related reimbursement to build a Supercenter in Carpentersville less than 10 miles away.
- The Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act bars redevelopment costs that directly support a retailer opening within 10 miles of a closed location unless the retailer documents that the closing was for reasons beyond its control and the municipality reasonably finds certain conditions.
- East Dundee alleged Wal‑Mart did not document that the East Dundee closure was beyond its control, Carpentersville approved a $4.3 million reimbursement nonetheless, and East Dundee would suffer lost tax revenue and other economic harms.
- East Dundee previously brought a related suit that was involuntarily dismissed as not ripe; this new complaint was filed in April 2015 after alleged findings were made.
- The trial court denied East Dundee’s motion for substitution of judge as of right and entered involuntary dismissal (finding East Dundee lacked standing); the court did not decide whether the Act creates a private right of action.
- On appeal the appellate court reversed the denial of substitution, vacated the dismissal in part, and remanded with directions to grant substitution of judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substitution of judge as of right under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1001(a)(2)(ii) | Motion was timely and no substantive rulings had been made in the present case | Judge previously made substantive rulings in the prior litigation so substitution can be denied for the refiling | Bowman (supreme court) inapplicable; prior dismissal was involuntary, so East Dundee was entitled to substitution; denial reversed and remanded to grant substitution |
| Standing to challenge Carpentersville’s approval | East Dundee alleged concrete economic injuries (lost sales and property tax revenues) giving standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief | East Dundee lacks standing to invalidate Carpentersville’s approval of the reimbursement | Trial court had found lack of standing, but that dismissal was vacated in part because of the improper denial of substitution; appellate court did not finally resolve standing on the merits and remanded |
| Ripeness (prior suit) and whether 2015 suit was proper refiling | This suit is ripe because Carpentersville had made the required findings and Wal‑Mart had applied for reimbursement | This is a refiling of the prior action and procedural defenses apply | Court distinguishes Bowman and finds the prior dismissal was involuntary (not a voluntary refiling situation), so refiling does not bar substitution; ripeness issue not finally decided here |
| Private right of action under the Act | East Dundee proceeded under declaratory and injunctive theories to enforce statutory limits | Wal‑Mart argued the Act does not create a private right of action; dismissal warranted under 2‑615 | Trial court did not decide the private‑right‑of‑action issue; appellate court did not reach it and remanded for further proceedings after substitution granted |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. City of Canton v. Crouch, 79 Ill. 2d 356 (1980) (describing purpose and powers under the Redevelopment Act)
- Bowman v. Ottney, 2015 IL 119000 (2015) (refusal to allow substitution after voluntary dismissal/refiling where plaintiff earlier allowed substantive rulings)
- LVNV Funding, LLC v. Trice, 2015 IL 116129 (2015) (judgment voidness limited to lack of jurisdiction; nonjurisdictional errors render orders unauthorized)
- Doe v. Gleicher, 393 Ill. App. 3d 31 (2009) (dismissal for failure to state a claim is an adjudication on the merits)
- Aussieker v. City of Bloomington, 355 Ill. App. 3d 498 (2005) (orders entered after improper denial of substitution may be void or subject to vacatur)
- Chicago Transparent Prods., Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 337 Ill. App. 3d 931 (2002) (substitution of judge under section 2‑1001 is absolute when statutory conditions met)
- Rodisch v. Commacho‑Esparza, 309 Ill. App. 3d 346 (1999) (de novo review of denial of substitution of judge as of right)
- Sahoury v. Moses, 308 Ill. App. 3d 413 (1999) (statute granting substitution of judge construed liberally)
- Hudkins v. Egan, 364 Ill. App. 3d 587 (2006) (scope of interlocutory review under Rule 308 is generally limited to the certified question)