Thompson et al v. Ruddy et al

Filing 34

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 6/28/2012:Defendants Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Count 2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint insofar as it is being brought by Plaintiff Rock is dismissed. The remainder of the Motion to Dismiss is denied. Status hearing set for 7/19/2012 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice(wp, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Harry D. Leinenweber

CASE NUMBER

11 C 4425

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

6/28/2012

Beverly Thompson, et al. vs. Gregory P. Ruddy, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendants Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Count 2 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint insofar
as it is being brought by Plaintiff Rock is dismissed. The remainder of the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Status hearing set for 7/19/2012 at 9:00 a.m.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
According to the Complaint, the Defendants caused four ordinance violations to be filed against the
Plaintiff, Thompson, for allegedly placing fill on her property without a permit causing runoff on to neighboring
property. At a bench trial she was convicted of three of the citations. The Third District Appellate Court reversed
because the fill had been placed on the property prior to its annexation to the City of Joliet, making it a legal nonconforming use. The Plaintiffs, Thompson and Rock, the current owner of the property, filed a Complaint against
Ruddy, a civil engineer employed by the City of Joliet, and Kucharz, the assistant corporation counsel who
initiated the Complaint, alleging a civil rights conspiracy in Count I, a complaint for malicious prosecution in
Count II, and a Monell claim against the City of Joliet on Count III. The Court. on its own Motion, dismissed
Count I but allowed the remaining two counts to remain. The Court on its own also dismissed the Defendant
Kucharz, as immune. The remaining Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss.
The Motion is somewhat hazy in that it does not specify what it exactly seeks to have dismissed.
However, it is clear that since the ordinance violation complaints were against Thompson and not against Plaintiff
Rock, he could not have been the victim of a malicious prosecution. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Count II
as it pertains to Plaintiff Rock. The other basis for dismissal as set forth in the Motion is an allegation that
someone other than the pro se plaintiffs provided them “with substantial behind the scenes legal assistance,” and
as a result the Complaint must be dismissed. The Defendants cite Blue v. State of Illinois, 585 N.E.2d 625, 626
(Ill. App. 2nd Dist. 1992). However Defendants misread Blue. What Blue holds is that an non-lawyer may not
file a Complaint on behalf of another individual, and a pleading “signed by a person who is not licensed to
practice law in this State is a nullity . . .” However the Complaint was signed by both Plaintiffs in their individual
capacity, not by another person on their behalf. Therefore, this aspect of the Motion is denied.
In sum, Count 2 insofar as it is being brought by Plaintiff Rock is dismissed. The remainder of the Motion
is denied.

11C4425 Beverly Thompson, et al. vs. Gregory P. Ruddy, et al.

Page 1 of 1