Gautreaux, et al v. Chgo Housing Auth, et al

Filing 427

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order, Signed by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 10/9/2013:Judicial staff mailed notice(gl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DOROTHY GAUTREAUX, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHICAGO HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 66 C 1459
Judge Marvin E. Aspen

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:
Presently before us is a motion for reassignment filed by Defendant Chicago Housing
Authority (“CHA”), (Dkt. No. 416), asking that we accept reassignment of a newly-filed case
currently pending before Judge Gettleman, Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council, et al. v.
Chicago Housing Authority, et al. (Case No. 13 C 3642). CHA contends that, pursuant to
Local Rule 40.4, the Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council (“Cabrini-Green LAC”) case should
be reassigned as related to the Gautreaux case. CHA also argues that the reassigned case should
then be dismissed, with leave for plaintiffs, including the Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council
(“LAC”), to seek to intervene on this matter in Gautreaux.1 While the Gautreaux plaintiffs agree
with CHA, LAC and the individual plaintiffs object. For the reasons set forth below, we grant
the motion in part, and deny it in part. We order reassignment of the case, but we decline to
order dismissal of the Cabrini-Green LAC complaint at this time.

1

We have permitted LAC to intervene in Gautreaux case in the past. (See, e.g.,
11/24/1998 Dkt. Entry (granting motion to intervene for the limited purpose of filing a waiver);
Dkt. No. 416-1, Ex. F (9/12/2000 order granting agreed motion to allow LAC to intervene
without limitation).)

BACKGROUND
In 1966, African-American tenants of, and applicants for, public housing filed actions
against the CHA and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, alleging that they
had unconstitutionally engaged in discrimination by selecting sites for public housing based on
the racial makeup of the surrounding communities. In the early stages of the litigation, both
agencies were found to have discriminated “by selecting housing project sites in predominantly
black neighborhoods and by using racial quotas to limit the number of blacks in housing projects
in predominantly white neighborhoods.” Gautreaux v. Pierce, 690 F.2d 616, 619 (7th Cir.
1982). Specifically, in 1969, United States District Court Judge Austin granted summary
judgment in favor of the Gautreaux plaintiffs. Gautreaux v. Chi. Housing Auth., 296 F. Supp.
907, 909, 913–15 (N.D. Ill. 1969). He then “entered a remedial decree that was designed to ban
racially discriminatory site selection and tenant assignment policies and to undo the harm that
had already occurred.” Gautreaux v. Chi. Housing Auth., 491 F.3d 649, 651–52 (7th Cir. 2007);
Gautreaux v. Chi. Housing Auth., 304 F. Supp. 736, 737 (N.D. Ill. 1969).
Pursuant to the remedial decree, we retain jurisdiction to enter orders involving the
construction, implementation, modification, or enforcement of the judgment. Over the decades,
we have modified the judgment decree “several times to reflect changes in neighborhoods,
circumstances and community housing needs.” Gautreaux v. Chi. Housing Auth., 475 F.3d 845,
847 (7th Cir. 2007). We continue to address issues raised by the parties and intervenors with
respect to the 1969 judgment and various related agreements entered into over the years. Such
issues typically include CHA’s plans to renovate, rehabilitate, or build public housing locations
throughout the City of Chicago.

-2-

In particular, we have previously addressed the Receiver’s and CHA’s plans to renovate
the Cabrini-Green site. On September 12, 2000, we authorized revitalization of the CabriniGreen site as part of the Near North Revitalizing Area. (See Dkt. No. 416-1, Ex. E.) We ordered
the Receiver (in place at that time, though no longer) to arrange for development within that area
of a certain minimum number of housing units “by lease, new construction or otherwise.” (Id.
¶ 3.) At that time, we recognized that LAC had interests related to the redevelopment of the
Cabrini-Green site and that decisions in Gautreaux might, as a practical matter, impair those
interests. (See Dkt. No. 416-1, Ex. F.) We thus granted an agreed motion allowing LAC to
intervene in Gautreaux as needed to protect its interests.
In its new lawsuit before Judge Gettleman, LAC2 challenges CHA’s plan to redevelop the
Francis Cabrini Rowhouses. The Rowhouses are one of four sections comprising the former
Cabrini-Green development. (LAC Compl. ¶ 40.) They are located on the blocks between Oak
Street to the north, Chicago Avenue to the south, Larrabee to the west, and Hudson to the east.
(Id. ¶ 41.) The Rowhouses are immediately adjacent to other sections of Cabrini-Green that fall
within the Near North Revitalizing Area. (Mot., Ex. G (map of the area).)
In 2000, CHA announced a Plan for Transformation that, among other things,
contemplated rehabilitation of the Rowhouses. (LAC Compl. ¶ 1.) CHA’s initial plan was to
rehabilitate the Rowhouses, rather than tear them down, and to maintain them as 100% public
housing. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 46.) In the intervening years, CHA notified residents of the Rowhouses of
the need to move pending rehabilitation of the homes. The residents complied, and hundreds of
them have a right to return to the Rowhouses when the work is complete. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 49, 51.)

2

We refer to LAC and the individual plaintiffs collectively as “LAC” hereinafter.
-3-

Although CHA planned four phases for the rehabilitation, only one has yet occurred. (Id. ¶¶ 3,
47, 53.)
On September 15, 2011, CHA announced that it no longer supported redevelopment of
the Rowhouses as 100% public housing. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 60.) Instead, CHA intends to turn the
Rowhouses into mixed-income housing. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 60–61.) The mixed-income plan likely means
that CHA would designate no more than one-third of the units for public housing. (Id. ¶ 62.)
According to LAC, this approach will reduce the number of units available for public housing
residents in the Near North, forcing former Rowhouse residents to relocate to high-poverty,
segregated areas of Chicago. (Id. ¶¶ 65–71.) LAC contends that CHA’s decision to convert the
Rowhouses to mixed-income housing perpetuates segregation and violates various statutes and
executive orders. (Id. ¶¶ 79–99.) LAC seeks injunctive relief preventing CHA from converting
the Rowhouses into anything less than 100% public housing. (Id. ¶ IX, A.)
In the pending motion, CHA asks that we reassign the Cabrini-Green LAC action to the
Gautreaux case as related, pursuant to Local Rule 40.4. CHA further asks that we dismiss
Cabrini-Green LAC, without prejudice as to LAC’s right to seek leave to intervene in
Gautreaux. As CHA points out, we employed this approach in a somewhat similar scenario in
1999. (See Mot., Ex. K (11/5/99 Min. Order).) LAC opposes both reassignment and dismissal.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Local Rule 40.4, we may accept reassignment of a case not randomly
assigned to us, under certain circumstances, so long as the cases are related. The first step in this
analysis requires the movant to demonstrate that the cases are related. Cases are deemed related
where: “(1) the cases involve the same property; (2) the cases involve some of the same issues of

-4-

fact or law; (3) the cases grow out of the same transaction or occurrence; or (4) in class action
suits, one or more of the classes involved in the cases is or are the same.” Id. at 40.4(a). Local
Rule 40.4(a) “does not require complete identity of issues in order for cases to be considered
related,” Fairbanks Capital Corp. v. Jenkins, 02 C 3930, 2002 WL 31655277, at *2 (N.D. Ill.
Nov. 25, 2002), rather it is enough that the two cases “involve some of the same issues of fact or
law,” Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household Int’l., Inc., 02 C 5893, 2003 WL 21011757,
at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2003). See also Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Green Bay Packers, Inc.,
No. 00 C 4623, 2008 WL 1848142, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2008); Clark v. Ins. Car Rentals
Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d 846, 848 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
If the cases are indeed related, we consider whether the circumstances warrant
reassignment. Related cases should be reassigned only if:
(1) both cases are pending in this Court; (2) the handling of both cases by the same
judge is likely to result in a substantial saving of judicial time and effort; (3) the
earlier case has not progressed to the point where designating a later filed case as
related would be likely to delay the proceedings in the earlier case substantially; and
(4) the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding.
L.R. 40.4(b) (emphasis added). The decision whether to reassign a case as related falls within
our sound discretion. Clark, 42 F. Supp. 2d at 847; see Hollinger Int’l, Inc. v. Hollinger, Inc.,
No. 04 C 698, 2004 WL 1102327, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2004).
A.

Relatedness

As CHA and the Gautreaux plaintiffs note, LAC does not contest that these two cases are
“related” as defined by Local Rule 40.4(a). (See Reply at 1.) Indeed, LAC offers no argument
to dispute this issue, focusing entirely on the Local Rule 40.4(b) factors considered below.
Nonetheless, CHA persuasively explains that the cases satisfy several of the Local Rule 40.4(b)

-5-

options. (Mem. at 5–7.) For example, in viewing the Cabrini-Green area as a whole, the two
cases involve the same real property, subject to different revitalization plans for different parcels.
L.R. 40.4(a)(1). As a practical matter, the plan for the Rowhouses affects the success of the plan
for the rest of the Cabrini-Green redevelopment. The cases also plainly “involve some of the
same issues of fact or law.” L.R. 40.4(a)(2). Both address how CHA should revitalize public
housing at Cabrini-Green, including difficult questions about what percentage of the proposed
new and rehabilitated developments should be reserved for public housing residents. We agree
with CHA that the cases are related.
B.

Reassignment

Having concluded that the cases are related, we must decide whether reassignment of
Cabrini-Green LAC is appropriate. LAC generally contends that the motion for reassignment
“comes more than four decades too late . . . for there is no hope of saving time through
coordinated discovery or common disposition.” (Opp’n at 3.) LAC argues that Gautreaux is not
truly pending because the 1969 judgment resolved all substantive merits of the case. (Id. at 3–5.)
LAC also asserts that the scope of the Gautreaux holding and remedial decree simply does not
cover the issues raised and relief sought in Cabrini-Green LAC. (Id. at 6–12.) According to
LAC, we lack jurisdiction over the claims in Cabrini-Green LAC because those claims address
the rehabilitation of existing housing units, rather than the construction of new housing projects
at issue in Gautreaux. (Id. at 8.)
LAC’s jurisdictional argument is misplaced. The Northern District of Illinois plainly has
subject matter jurisdiction over the Cabrini-Green LAC matter, which LAC filed in federal court
alleging federal claims. LAC’s alternative argument—that Cabrini-Green LAC does not raise

-6-

Gautreaux issues—also misses the mark. First, based on our reading of the Cabrini-Green LAC
complaint, we find that it asserts claims that overlap with Gautreaux issues. As discussed
earlier, and as LAC apparently concedes, the two cases are related in light of their shared
questions and remedies sought. Second, LAC’s position on the scope of the two cases entirely
overlooks the point of the present motion. The question before us is not whether Gautreaux
subsumes and eclipses Cabrini-Green LAC. The question is whether we should exercise our
discretion under Local Rule 40.4(b) to reassign the new case as related to Gautreaux. As
explained below, we conclude that reassignment is appropriate.
I.

Both cases are pending in this Court.

Despite LAC’s claim to the contrary, both Cabrini-Green LAC and Gautreaux are
pending in the Northern District of Illinois. Gautreaux did not end, as LAC suggests, in 1969.
See, e.g., Gautreaux, 491 F.3d at 656 (“Normally, postjudgment litigation in a complex equitable
proceeding is better viewed as largely free-standing from the underlying case.”). The Gautreaux
case undisputedly remains active before us, as CHA strives to comply with the 1969 judgment
and develops ongoing plans for public housing in Chicago. Indeed, LAC has participated in
negotiations and motion practice in Gautreaux for more than a decade. The fact that Judge
Austin ruled on the merits of Gautreaux in 1969 does not mean that the case is no longer
“pending,” particularly because the remedial decree has been regularly and repeatedly amended
as needed to accommodate new events and changing circumstances. The Gautreaux judgment
and remedial decree continue to guide, authorize, and require our jurisdiction over Gautreaux
issues, until their purposes are fulfilled.

-7-

ii.

The handling of both cases by the same judge is likely to result in a substantial
saving of judicial time and effort.

As to this second requirement, we find that reassignment will save significant judicial
resources and ensure consistent rulings on common questions about use of the Rowhouses. We
are already familiar with the long history of Gautreaux, the parties involved (including the
Cabrini-Green LAC parties), their community, legal, and political motivations, and, of course,
the pertinent legal issues and likely factual disputes. Importantly, the Cabrini-Green LAC
complaint cannot be evaluated properly outside its context. Because Gautreaux provides that
context, reassignment makes sense.
LAC contends that reassignment would not save judicial time and effort because no
discovery or other proceedings need to be coordinated to avoid duplication. (Opp’n at 4.)
Although discovery is not ongoing in Gautreaux, future disputes about the Rowhouses might yet
require discovery and/or hearings within Gautreaux. In its reply brief, for example, CHA
explains that “[had] the Cabrini plaintiffs not filed their case, either the Gautreaux plaintiffs or
CHA would have presented a motion to permit development of the Rowhouses site as a mixedincome area.” (Reply at 12.) Accordingly, the discovery needed for Cabrini-Green LAC will be
useful in Gautreaux, as the same issue will come to a head.
Indeed, in light of the conflicting relief sought in both cases, their resolution must be
coordinated at some point. LAC seeks to preclude CHA from rehabilitating the Rowhouses as
anything less than 100% public housing. Yet the Gautreaux plaintiffs and CHA have agreed to
redevelop the Cabrini-Green site as mixed-income housing, which both affects and is affected by
the composition of units at the Rowhouses. Should the Cabrini-Green LAC complaint have
merit, these competing remedies must be reconciled. Reassignment will save substantial judicial
-8-

time and effort by having one judge address these overlapping issues simultaneously.
Reassignment will also thus guarantee consistency and promote efficiency.3
iii.

The earlier case has not progressed to the point where designating a later filed
case as related would be likely to substantially delay the proceedings in the
earlier case .

With respect to this third factor, LAC again claims that reassignment is not possible
because Gautreaux has not only progressed “too far,” it is actually closed. (Opp’n at 5.) As
discussed above, Gautreaux is pending before us. Gautreaux has not yet addressed the primary
issue raised by the Cabrini-Green LAC complaint, which arose after CHA announced on
September 15, 2011 that it would no longer support 100% public housing at the Rowhouses.
Nonetheless, that question about the constitution of the Rowhouses is percolating in Gautreaux,
as much as it is in Cabrini-Green LAC. Because we have not yet considered that question in the
course of the remedial Gautreaux proceedings, reassignment of Cabrini-Green LAC will not
cause any delay.
iv.

The cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding.

Finally, we conclude that we can resolve the questions raised by Cabrini-Green LAC and
Gautreaux as to the Rowhouses in a single proceeding. LAC does not argue otherwise, relying
only on its misguided pendency argument. (Opp’n at 5.) Not only can we dispose of these
issues in a single proceeding—we should. As discussed earlier, the claims asserted and remedy

3

Reassignment will help avoid inefficiencies created when attempting to coordinate
proceedings and another judge’s rulings with our rulings in Gautreaux. (See 8/12/1998 Dkt.
Entry (setting aside CHA’s negotiations in Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council v. Chi.
Housing Auth., Case No. 96 C 6949, because they failed to include the Receiver);
9/12/2000 Dkt. Entry (granting motion to approve the consent decree negotiated in that case,
Case No. 96 C 6949).)
-9-

sought in Cabrini-Green LAC cannot be considered or resolved in isolation. The case simply has
wider implications. It will be far more efficient and economical to allow one judge to coordinate
these related cases. As such, we exercise our discretion to grant the reassignment.
C.

Dismissal

CHA also asks that we dismiss the reassigned Cabrini-Green LAC case, with leave for
LAC to seek leave to intervene. We decline to do so at this time. We thus deny the motion
without prejudice as to CHA’s refiling at a later date.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we grant in part CHA’s motion and hereby order
reassignment of Cabrini-Green Local Advisory Council, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority, et
al. (Case No. 13 C 3642). We deny the motion in part, however, and will not dismiss the
Cabrini-Green LAC complaint at this time. It is so ordered.

________________________________
Honorable Marvin E. Aspen
U.S. District Court Judge
Dated: October 9, 2013

-10-