LaPlayita Cicero, Inc., et al v. Town of Cicero

Filing 96

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John Z. Lee on 3/30/16Mailed notice(ca, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
LA PLAYITA CICERO, INC.,
d/b/a Serenata Restaurant and Bar,
& GERARDO MEZA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TOWN OF CICERO, ILLINOIS,
a municipal corporation, LARRY
DOMINICK in his official and
individual capacities, PAUL
DEMBOWSKI, LARRY POLK &
SERGE ROCHER,
Defendants.
LA PLAYITA CICERO, INC.,
d/b/a Serenata Restaurant and Bar,
& GERARDO MEZA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TOWN OF CICERO, ILLINOIS,
a municipal corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 11-cv-1702
Judge John Z. Lee

No. 11-cv-5561
Judge John Z. Lee

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Gerardo Meza owned Serenata Restaurant and Bar in the Town of Cicero,
Illinois, from 2005 to 2009. Beginning in 2006, Cicero officials cited, fined, and

summarily closed Serenata numerous times for purported violations of the local
liquor code. And in 2008, a Cicero police officer arrested Meza for allegedly striking
two Cicero officials who were investigating Serenata.
Meza, who contends that the

citations and battery charges were

unwarranted, filed these two lawsuits, which have been consolidated for purposes of
summary judgment. In one case, No. 11-cv-5561, Meza claims under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1983 that Cicero violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In the other case,
No. 11-cv-1702, Meza has brought the same claims as well as state law claims
against Cicero and four individual defendants. In both cases, Meza contends
Defendants targeted him and his restaurant because Meza is Hispanic and because
he was politically opposed to the Town President, who was also the Liquor
Commissioner. Defendants, who insist that they only sought to protect the public
from Serenata’s frequent liquor code violations, have filed a consolidated motion for
summary judgment.
The Court concludes that numerous disputes of material fact preclude
summary judgment on most of Meza’s claims. Defendants’ consolidated motion for
summary judgment is granted on Meza’s state law claims as to two defendants, but
the motion is otherwise denied.
I. Factual Background
Defendant Larry Dominick was at all relevant times Cicero’s Town President
and Liquor Commissioner. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 4. Defendant Paul Dembowski was

2

the Deputy Liquor Commissioner until he was promoted in June 2009 to
Superintendent of Internal Affairs, at which time his wife, Cindy, who is Dominick’s
sister, took over as Deputy Commissioner. Id. ¶¶ 5–6. Defendant Larry Polk was a
Cicero police officer who investigated Serenata. Id. ¶¶ 8, 14, 27, 49. And Defendant
Serge Rocher was the Deputy Superintendent of Auxiliary Police, a position that
required him to assist with “protecting the President of the Town” and also involved
him in the investigation of Serenata. Id. ¶¶ 10, 49.
Dembowski, Polk, and Rocher all supported Dominick politically. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9–
10. Dembowski and his wife donated tens of thousands of dollars to Dominick’s
campaigns; Polk donated thousands of dollars as well and attended meetings in
support of Dominick’s political organization; and Dominick said of Rocher (who
Meza describes as Dominick’s “bodyguard”), “I know he’s on my side [politically].”
Id.; Pls.’ Ex. 10, Dominick Dep. in Perales v. Cicero, at 128. 1
Plaintiff Gerardo Meza, who is Hispanic, opened Serenata in 2005 and began
advertising the restaurant in El Dia, a local bilingual newspaper owned by the
Montes de Oca family. Defs.’ Add’l Facts ¶¶ 2, 22. In early 2006, El Dia began
publishing negative articles about Dominick and his administration. Id. ¶ 24. Part
of El Dia’s criticism of Dominick concerned his purportedly poor treatment of
Hispanic members of the community. Id.

Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ characterization of Dembowski and his wife as
Dominick’s “political allies” on the grounds that the description is “vague” (though they do
not similarly object to that characterization of Polk). See Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶¶ 7,
9–10. In any event, a jury can decide whether that description is apt.
1

3

According to a man named Jose del Angel, who attended “precinct captain”
meetings for Dominick’s political organization from 2005 to 2007, Dominick was
incensed by El Dia’s criticism. Id. ¶ 25. Del Angel says that he personally heard
Dominick call the members of the Montes de Oca family his “political enemies” and
announce that anyone who would advertise in El Dia was also his political enemy.
Id. Del Angel says in addition that he heard Dominick at precinct captain meetings
referring to Mexican immigrants as “wetbacks,” “spics,” and “illegal fuckin’
immigrants.” Id. ¶ 65.
Defendants do not dispute that Dominick made the “political enemies”
comment, and Dominick admits that he saw Serenata’s advertisements in El Dia
before El Dia began to criticize him. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 23. 2 Dominick also admits
that he “may have” called both Meza and the owners of El Dia “two-legged rats.”
Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 43; Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 28. But Dominick denies ever

During Dominick’s 2010 deposition in this case, he was asked the following
questions and gave the following answers:

2

Q. You knew that Gerardo Meza was putting advertising in El Dia
newspaper for Serenata’s?
A. Sure I did.
Q. You read El Dia?
A. Well, I tried not to. Only when there is stuff pertaining to my
wife and mother. I would get upset and read it.
Q. Well, how is it that you would know the Mr. Meza was running
advertising in El Dia?
A. I seen it before. I seen it before. But after they started writing
stuff about me – I never read it unless someone said, hey, they
said something about your wife or your mother. And then I
would read it.
Pls.’ Ex. 5, Dominick Dep., at 107.

4

making derogatory comments about Mexicans. See Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts
¶ 65.
In May 2006, Serenata began receiving citations for violations of the local
liquor code. Defs.’ SOF ¶¶ 13–15. Many of Serenata’s citations were the result of
“sting” operations conducted by Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 6, 10, 31, 33. Dembowski
organized the stings of Serenata and other establishments and would inform
Dominick anytime an establishment “was busted.” Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶¶ 18–19; Pls.’
Ex. 5, Dembowski Dep., at 87–88. Dominick himself sometimes prompted stings by
forwarding Dembowski liquor license complaints with the expectation that
Dembowski would conduct a sting shortly thereafter. Id. Additionally, Dominick
often personally conducted surveillance outside liquor establishments, including
Serenata, “to see if minors were going in.” Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 16; Pls.’ Ex 5,
Dominick Dep., at 163–64; 3 Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 16.
On July 6, 2006, Dominick and Dembowski ordered Serenata to close for
seven days for allegedly serving someone who was underage. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 27.
The allegations stemmed from a car accident involving an intoxicated minor who
was wearing a colored bracelet similar to those Serenata used to designate patrons
who were 21 and over. Id. The driver also had an open can of beer in her car. Id.
Dominick and Dembowski did not interview anyone at Serenata to find out if the
underage person had actually been there or if Serenata was using that particular
color of bracelet on the evening of the accident. Id.
Dominick expressed uncertainty during his deposition about whether he had
conducted surveillance at Serenata, but he ultimately seems to concede that he did. Pls.’
Ex. 5, Dominick Dep., at 164.
3

5

Later in July 2006, Meza encountered Dominick, who, according to Meza, told
him to stop advertising in El Dia. Id. ¶ 28. Meza believed that Dominick was
making an implicit threat to target Serenata with additional citations if he did not
sever ties with El Dia and the Montes de Oca family. Id. Dominick denies ever
telling Meza not to advertise in El Dia. Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 28.
The clashes between Meza and the Cicero authorities continued through the
rest of 2006. See Defs.’ SOF ¶¶ 18, 23. On New Year’s Eve of that year, Dembowski
and Cicero police officers summarily shut down Serenata on the basis that the
second floor of the restaurant did not have a valid permit. Id. ¶ 18. But the Town
Attorney ultimately acknowledged that Serenata had been given permission to
operate on the second floor. Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ SOF ¶ 18.
In 2007, Serenata was cited for liquor code violations several more times. See,
e.g., Defs.’ SOF ¶¶ 22, 26. In September of that year Cicero actually revoked
Serenata’s liquor license, but the revocation was reversed by the Illinois State
Liquor Commission in January 2008, and a ten-day suspension was imposed
instead. Id. ¶¶ 29–30. Serenata continued to receive citations and fines through
2008. Id. ¶¶ 31, 33, 35. Some of the penalties were upheld, and some were not. See,
e.g., id. ¶ 36; Defs.’ SOF ¶¶ 29–30.
Also in 2008, Meza attended “Town Board meetings to speak on matters of
public concern.” Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 41. While he was at the podium during a meeting
in November, Rocher grabbed him and attempted to pull him away from the

6

podium. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 39. Then, while Meza was still at the meeting, Serenata
received yet another citation. Id. ¶ 40. 4
Defendants continued to clash with Meza in 2009. 5 For example, Meza recalls
that at a February 2009 Town Board meeting, Dominick called him his “political
enemy” and discouraged him from attending future meetings. Pls.’ Add’l Facts
¶¶ 42–43. Dominick concedes that he “may” have done these things. Defs.’ Resp.
Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶¶ 42–43. And in April 2009, officers searched Serenata, telling
Meza that they had received a report that a group of underage girls were drinking
there, id. ¶ 45, 6 but the officers found no group of girls and no underage drinking,
id. ¶ 47. Then, at a Town Board meeting in July where Meza criticized Dominick’s

Defendants do not directly dispute that these events occurred, but they contend that
“Meza has not produced evidence” of Rocher’s action and also that Meza cannot testify to
what happened at Serenata while he was at the meeting. Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts
¶¶ 39–40. Of course, “a court may consider only admissible evidence in assessing a motion
for summary judgment.” Sow v. Fortville Police Dep’t, 636 F.3d 293, 301 (7th Cir. 2011). But
Meza’s testimony about Rocher is evidence, and he may also testify that he learned at some
point that his restaurant received a citation during the meeting. Moreover, Dembowski
confirmed in an affidavit that he saw Rocher “guide” Meza away from the podium during
the November 2008 meeting. See Defs.’ Ex. P, Dembowski Aff.
4

Meza and Cicero reached a settlement agreement about certain citations issued in
July 2009. Defs.’ SOF ¶ 38. Even without these incidents, however, Meza has presented
sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment.
5

Defendants also object on hearsay grounds to Meza’s testifying about what officers
told him was the reason for their visit. Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 45. But a statement
cannot be hearsay unless it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted, see Fed. R. Evid.
801(c)(2). Here, this statement is not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Rather, Plaintiffs are implying that the statement was untrue, a mere pretense for
searching Serenata.
6

7

administration, Dominick’s wife, Elizabeth, called Meza a “pig,” and officers told
him to leave. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 48. 7
Tensions came to a head on October 3, 2009, when Dembowski, 8 Polk, and
Rocher conducted a sting operation at Serenata, sending in two underage women to
attempt to purchase alcohol. Id. ¶ 49. The women were successful, and the
investigators accused Serenata of serving alcohol to minors. Id. 9 Meza asked to see
the IDs of the underage women. Id. ¶ 50. He did this because he suspected that they
had used fake IDs to induce the waitress to serve them. Id.; Pls.’ Ex. 4, Meza Dep.,
at 96–97. Polk, however, refused to show him their IDs. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 50. An
argument ensued outside of Serenata, and Defendants contend that Meza struck
Dembowski and Rocher with his fists. Defs.’ SOF ¶ 40.
Polk, who admittedly did not witness the alleged battery, Pls.’ Ex. 8, Polk
Dep., at 123, “made a decision that a battery had occurred” and so arrested Meza,
id. at 91; see Defs.’ SOF ¶¶ 60–61. Polk concedes that he did not interview Rocher,
Dembowski, or any other witness before making the arrest. Pls.’ Ex. 8, Polk Dep., at
91–92, 125–26. Polk does recall, however, that “Mr. Rocher said something to the
Defendants object to Elizabeth Dominick’s statement as inadmissible hearsay. See
Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 48. But Plaintiffs obviously are not offering this statement
for its truth.
7

Dembowski was no longer Deputy Liquor Commissioner at this point—his wife,
Dominick’s sister, had taken over—but Dembowski still participated in sting operations.
Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 15.
8

Defendants again object on hearsay grounds, see Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 49,
but they have misapprehended the hearsay rules once more. First, the statement is not
offered for the truth of the matter asserted. And even if it were, statements made by an
opposing party are not hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

9

8

effect of [Meza] should be arrested for battery.” Id. at 91; Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l
Facts ¶ 53. Police reports based on later interviews indicate that the underage
women, who were working for Dembowski, backed up Dembowski and Rocher’s
story that Meza had hit the men. Defs.’ SOF ¶ 39; Defs.’ Ex. GG, Police Reports. 10
Meza, who denies ever laying a hand on Dembowski or Rocher, was charged
with “battery based on bodily harm.” Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶¶ 54–55. Additionally, Polk
signed a “dram shop report” against Serenata, and Serenata received various other
citations relating to the events of that night. Id. ¶¶ 57–58; Pls.’ Ex. 28, Oct. 2009
Citations. Meza also soon received a notice informing him that Cicero was again
seeking to revoke Serenata’s liquor license. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 59.
In December 2009, before the revocation proceedings concluded, Meza closed
Serenata for good. Id. ¶ 63. He contends that Defendants’ “incessant harassment
and retaliation against” him left him no choice. Id.
Meza’s criminal case continued into 2010. During a bench trial in September,
Rocher testified for the prosecution that Meza had elbowed him in the face. See Pls.’
Ex. 23, Meza Trial Trans. 1, at 152. The underage women involved with the sting
also testified for the prosecution. One of them, Ashley Kennedy, testified that Meza
had hit Dembowski on the arm, but she admitted on cross-examination that she had
initially told investigators that she saw Meza hit Dembowski in the chest. The
Meza objects that the police reports are inadmissible hearsay, Pls.’ Resp. Defs.’ SOF
¶ 39, and his objection may be valid if the reports are offered for the truth of the matters
asserted therein by third parties. See Jordan v. Binns, 712 F.3d 1123, 1133 (7th Cir. 2013)
(explaining that third-party statements in police reports do not benefit from the “public
records” exception to the hearsay rules because “the presumption of reliability does not
attach to third parties who themselves have no public duty to report”). This issue can be
resolved through a motion in limine prior to trial.
10

9

other, Victoria Smith, testified that Meza had hit Dominick, but she was uncertain
where, and she admitted that she never saw Meza touch Rocher. Id. at 53, 56, 68. A
third minor, Liza Irazoque, who was working with Dembowski’s crew on liquor sting
operations but had not gone into Serenata that night, conceded that, although she
saw the incident, she did not actually see Meza’s fist make contact with anyone. Id.
at 76. Polk did not testify at Meza’s trial, but he did attend the trial because he “felt
[he] had a stake in it.” Pls.’ Ex. 8, Polk Dep., at 92. The portions of the trial
transcript in the record do not reveal whether Dembowski testified. 11
On September 14, 2010, the judge found Meza guilty of battering Dembowski
but not guilty of battering Rocher. Pls.’ Ex. 25, Meza Trial Trans. 2, at 203. Meza
then moved for a new trial. See Pls.’ Ex. 31, New Trial Mot.
On October 28, 2010, the judge vacated Meza’s conviction for battering
Dembowski. Pls.’ Ex. 26, Hearing Trans., at 7–11. The judge explained, “I believe
you committed a disorderly conduct, and then you committed a battery under the
theory of insulting or provoking conduct,” but he went on to say that he was wrong
to have found Meza guilty of “battery based on bodily harm.” Id. at 7.
[I]n my interest in disposing of the case that day, I rushed
to judgment and just kind of split the baby and found you
not guilty of the one, but guilty of the other . . . . And
that’s not how a judge really should decide a case. You
know you are not part of the criminal element, you are a
business person. No one would be afraid to live next to
you, these officers, no one would. You are not a danger to
During Dembowski’s deposition for this case, which was taken July 20, 2010, he
testified that Meza had hit him in October 2009. Pls.’ Ex. 6, Dembowski Dep., at 91. But he
refused to give any details of the incident, contending that Meza’s ongoing criminal case
prevented him from doing so. Id. 91–94.

11

10

the community, and so you deserved a little more
consideration than I gave you on that.
Id. at 7–8. The judge explained that he had been convinced that Dembowski
suffered bodily harm by medical records showing that Dembowski had gone to the
hospital after his altercation with Meza, but the judge was bothered by the
prosecution’s failure to turn over those records so that Meza could try to use them in
his defense. Id. at 9–10. The bottom line, the judge explained, was that “there was
not proof . . . beyond a reasonable doubt for bodily harm.” Id. at 10.
II. Procedural History
In case no. 11-cv-5561, Meza names Cicero as defendant and asserts federal
claims under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. In case no. 11-cv1702, Meza includes the same federal claims but adds state claims and individual
defendants. The circuitous path by which these two cases made their way from state
to federal court is detailed in the Court’s March 11, 2014, opinion in no. 11-cv-1702,
La Playita Cicero, Inc. v. Town of Cicero, No. 11-cv-1702, 2014 WL 944859, at *1
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2014), and in an opinion issued by Judge Dow in no. 11-cv-5561
before that case was transferred to this Court, La Playita Cicero, Inc. v. Town of
Cicero, No. 11-cv-5561, 2013 WL 309089, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2013).
As explained, given the atypical procedural history of these cases, the
applicable statutes of limitations mean that the federal claims in no. 11-cv-1702
may go forward only to the extent they are based on incidents occurring after
February 11, 2009. La Playita, No. 11-cv-1702, 2014 WL 944859, at *13. The
malicious prosecution claim is timely, and the intentional infliction of emotional
11

distress claim is timely to the extent it is premised on the malicious prosecution. Id.
The claims in no. 11-cv-5561, however, can be based on events occurring as early as
2006.
III. Legal Standard
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all counts in both cases.
Summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The Court gives “the non-moving party the benefit of
conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences that could be drawn from it.”
Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 794 (7th Cir. 2013).
In order to survive summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “do more than
simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986), and
“must establish some genuine issue for trial such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict in her favor,” Gordon v. FedEx Freight, Inc., 674 F.3d 769, 772–73
(7th Cir. 2012).
IV. Analysis
A. Individual Defendants
The Court’s analysis will begin with the claims in no. 11-cv-1702 against the
individual defendants. As explained, the federal claims in that case must be based
on events occurring after February 11, 2009, while the state claims must be tied to
Meza’s battery prosecution. Additionally, each defendants’ potential liability must

12

be considered independently because an individual cannot be held liable in a § 1983
action unless he or she participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation. Kuhn
v. Goodlow, 678 F.3d 552, 556 (7th Cir. 2012). And liability may attach to a
supervisor only if the alleged constitutional violation occurred at the supervisor’s
direction or with his knowledge or consent. Childress v. Walker, 787 F.3d 433, 440
(7th Cir. 2015). In other words, the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply to
actions filed under § 1983. Flint v. City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d 764, 766 (7th Cir.
2015).
1. First Amendment
Meza claims that Defendants violated the First Amendment by conducting a
campaign of harassment against him in retaliation for his political opinion. For
Meza’s First Amendment retaliation claim to succeed, he must establish the
following elements:
(1) he engaged in activity protected by the First
Amendment; (2) he suffered a deprivation that would
likely deter First Amendment activity in the future; and
(3) the First Amendment activity was at least a
motivating factor in the Defendants decision to take the
retaliatory action.
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 546 (7th Cir. 2009). Even “petty” retaliatory acts
can violate the First Amendment if together they amount to a campaign of
harassment. DeGuiseppe v. Vill. of Bellwood, 68 F.3d 187, 192 (7th Cir. 1995); see
also Bridges, 557 F.3d at 552 (explaining that relatively minor instances of
harassment “over a period of several months would deter a person of ordinary
firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights.”).
13

Defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted on this claim
because, in their view, Meza did not engage in any protected speech before the
citations began in 2006, so he cannot show causation. Mem. Supp. at 14. But Meza
placed advertisements in El Dia before the citations began, and commercial speech
is protected by the First Amendment. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653
(2011) (“Under a commercial speech inquiry, it is the State’s burden to justify its
content-based law as consistent with the First Amendment.”) Dominick admits to
seeing the Serenata advertisements before El Di began criticizing him in early 2006
and before Serenata was first cited in May 2006. Meza then encountered Dominick
in July 2006, at which point Dominick (at least according to Meza) told him to stop
placing ads in El Dia. Meza understood Dominick to mean that Serenata would
receive additional citations if he continued to place ads in the newpaper. Meza
nonetheless refused, and the citations continued. Although Dominick denies telling
Meza to cease his advertising, it will be up to a jury to decide who is telling the
truth.
Having rejected Defendants’ causation argument, which applied to all
defendants, the Court will proceed to an analysis of each Defendant’s potential
liability for violating Meza’s First Amendment rights. For the reason given below,
the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that each Defendant
participated in a campaign designed to silence Meza or to punish him for his
political opposition to Dominick. A reasonable jury also could find that the postFebruary 2009 searches of Serenata, the citations issued, and the battery

14

accusations Meza endured would have deterred a person of ordinary firmness from
exercising his First Amendment rights.
a. Dominick
Defendants argue that Dominick cannot be liable under § 1983 for violating
the First Amendment because, as they see it, there is no evidence that he had any
involvement with the post-February 2009 sting operations at Serenata. Mem. Supp.
at 6. Dominick, however, was still the Liquor Commissioner and Town President
during those times, and if Meza’s account of the July 2009 Town Board meeting is
credited, Dominick still considered Meza his enemy during this period. A reasonable
jury could infer from these facts that Dominick at the very least approved the
ongoing operations targeting Meza, and “knowledge and consent” are enough for
liability. Gentry v. Duckworth, 65 F.3d 555, 561 (7th Cir. 1995) (reversing district
court’s grant of summary judgment to prison supervisor).
b. Dembowski
Defendants argue that the battery accusation that Dembowski leveled
against Meza cannot be the basis for a First Amendment claim against him
because, they contend, probable cause existed for the battery prosecution. Mem.
Supp. at 6, 17. They rely on Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 252 (2006), in which
the Supreme Court held that “want of probable cause must be alleged and proven”
for a plaintiff to succeed on a First Amendment claim that investigators induced a
prosecution in retaliation for protected speech. The Supreme Court reasoned that

15

the prosecutor may well have taken the same action even without the investigator’s
encouragement. Id. at 262–64.
Hartman is inapplicable to Meza’s First Amendment claim. The defendants
in that case merely encouraged the prosecution of the plaintiff; they did not
fabricate evidence. Here, if Meza’s testimony that he never hit Dembowski is taken
to be true, then Dembowski (along with Rocher) concocted the battery case against
him and also persuaded the underage women in his employ to back up his story.
There is no possibility that Meza would have been prosecuted in the absence of
Defendants’ allegedly false accusations.
What is more, Meza’s First Amendment claim against Dembowski does not
depend on the fact that Meza was actually prosecuted. Far less consequential false
accusations than these can form the basis of a First Amendment retaliation claim if
combined with other retaliatory actions. See, e.g., Pieczynski v. Duffy, 875 F.2d
1331, 1335–36 (7th Cir. 1989) (concluding that false accusation of unauthorized use
of a parking space could be part of a campaign of harassment in violation of the
First Amendment). And a reasonable jury could find that Dembowski’s accusation of
battery was part of a larger campaign of harassment against Meza and Serenata.
It’s true that most of the alleged campaign occurred before February 11, 2009, but
the earlier events, though falling outside the statute of limitations, nevertheless
may be relevant to what motivated Defendants’ later actions and whether those
later actions chilled speech.

16

c. Rocher
Defendants contend that Rocher cannot be liable to Meza for violating the
First Amendment, making the same argument based on Hartman that they made
about Dembowski. But Hartman is inapplicable for the same reasons it was
inapplicable with regard to Dembowski. A reasonable jury could find that Rocher
falsely accused Meza of battery as part of a campaign of harassment designed to
silence and punish Meza for his political opinion. Meza has offered evidence that
Rocher even went so far as to pull him away from the podium at a Town Board
meeting. That incident and others, though they fall outside the statute of
limitations, may be relevant to the actions Rocher took in October 2009, when he
participated in the sting operation and accused Meza of battery.
d. Polk
Defendants argue that Polk had probable cause to arrest Meza and that he is
thus entitled to qualified immunity from his First Amendment claim. In Reichle v.
Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2095 (2012), the Supreme Court held that an officer was
entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a
retaliatory arrest would violate the First Amendment if the arrest was supported by
probable cause.
Polk, however, may not have had probable cause to arrest Meza. Whether he
did depends in part on whether Rocher’s statement that Meza should be arrested for
battery is understood as Defendants understand it—as a report that Meza had hit
him—or is understood as a suggestion that Meza simply should be arrested

17

regardless of what he may have done. As Polk concedes, he did not interview a
single witness before making the arrest, and probable cause for an arrest is about
what the officer reasonably believed at the time of the arrest, United States v. Breit,
429 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2005), so the meaning of Rocher’s statement is crucial to
the inquiry.
Additionally, Defendants’ argument depends on too narrow an understanding
of Meza’s First Amendment claim. The retaliation Meza alleges against Polk is
broader than his arrest. Polk participated in multiple sting operations targeting
Serenata over the years, including at least two after February 11, 2009. As a result,
even if Meza’s arrest were supported by probable cause and Polk were entitled to
qualified immunity for the arrest itself, a reasonable jury could find that Polk
violated Meza’s First Amendment rights by retaliating against him in other ways.
2. Equal Protection
Meza claims that Defendants’ actions denied him equal protection of the
laws. He argues that they discriminated against him on the basis of race and
political opinion, 12 and he also presents a “class-of-one” theory, essentially arguing
that Defendants, even if they were not motivated by racism or a desire to suppress
and punish political dissent, targeted Serenata and Meza without any rational
justification.
The government may not selectively enforce a law against someone based on
his race or his exercise of a constitutional right without violating the Equal
These theories are not in conflict. Meza’s political opposition to Dominick, like El
Dia’s, was connected to Dominick’s alleged treatment of Hispanics.
12

18

Protection Clause. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608 (1985); Esmail v.
Macrane, 53 F.3d 176, 179 (7th Cir. 1995). Additionally, the Equal Protection
Clause “protect[s] individuals against purely arbitrary government classifications,
even when a classification consists of singling out just one person for different
treatment for arbitrary and irrational purposes.” Geinosky v. City of Chi., 675 F.3d
743, 747 (7th Cir. 2012).
For Meza’s equal protection claim to survive summary judgment, he must be
able to show that Defendants acted with a “discriminatory purpose” and that their
actions had a “discriminatory effect.” Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 635–
36 (7th Cir. 2001). Evidence of a defendant’s overt animus toward plaintiff’s class
can support the discriminatory purpose aspect of an equal protection claim, see id.
at 646 (explaining that racist comments are strong evidence of discriminatory
intent), and Meza has presented evidence that Dominick may have harbored
animosity toward Hispanics, as well as evidence that each Defendant targeted Meza
because of his political opposition to Dominick. But to show discriminatory effect, a
plaintiff must also provide evidence that a similarly situated person outside of his
class was treated more favorably. Id. (racist comments “do not by themselves violate
the Constitution”).
Some of Meza’s comparator evidence is inadmissible, 13 but he does identify at
least one comparator that would allow a jury to conclude that Dominick, at least,
For example, Meza’s asserts in his statement of facts that Cicero turned a blind eye
to underage drinking at Al’s Restaurant & Pizzeria, but his evidence for this is that people
who had been drinking there told him so. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 76. As Defendants correctly
point out, this is inadmissible hearsay. Defs.’ Resp. Pls’ Add’l Facts ¶ 76.
13

19

treated Meza differently because of his race, political opinion, or both. The
comparator is a white-owned restaurant in Cicero named Papagallos. Pls.’ Add’l
Facts ¶ 77. Its owner contributed thousands of dollars to Dominick’s campaign. Id.
Meza contends that, although Papagallos received many citations for violations of
the liquor code beginning in 2009, it was not fined or suspended for years
thereafter. Id. Defendants dispute that Papagallos was treated more favorably than
Serenata, pointing out that Papagallos was eventually fined and suspended in 2012.
Defs.’ Resp. Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶ 77. But a reasonable jury could find that Cicero’s
failure to take meaningful action against Papagallos for years (in fact, not until
after this lawsuit was filed) is evidence that Dominick favored Papagallos and
disfavored Serenata for discriminatory reasons.
The other individual defendants may not have been involved with Cicero’s
arguably lenient treatment of Papagallos. Dembowski had stopped being Deputy
Liquor Commissioner when his wife took over for him in 2009. But Meza also
asserts his equal protection claim under a class-of-one theory, and he need not
provide an exact comparison to another individual if it is “readily obvious” that the
defendants’ actions were motivated by animus. Swanson v. City of Chetek, 719 F.3d
780, 784 (7th Cir. 2013). A paradigmatic example is found in Geinosky, where the
defendants had given the plaintiff 24 parking tickets, many of them clearly
unwarranted, over a short period of time. 675 F.3d at 745, 749. The Seventh Circuit
concluded that identifying a specific individual who was not subjected to such
treatment would be unhelpful and that “the pattern and nature of defendants’

20

alleged conduct do the work of demonstrating the officers’ improper discriminatory
purpose.” Id. at 748. Here, if Meza’s evidence is credited, each individual defendant
unjustly targeted Serenata and Meza, even after February 11, 2009, with sting
operations, citations, false accusations, and an unwarranted arrest. And
Defendants’ pre-2009 treatment of Meza, though outside of the statute of
limitations, is admissible as further evidence of their animus. See id. at 749 (noting
that 10 of the plaintiff’s 24 parking tickets fell outside the statute of limitations).
3. State Claims
a. Count IV – Malicious Prosecution
Defendants contend that Meza cannot prove all of the elements of a malicious
prosecution claim. Those elements are:
(1) the defendant commenced or continued an original
criminal or civil judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding
terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3) there was an
absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (4) the
presence of malice; and (5) damages resulting to the
plaintiff.
Hurlbert v. Charles, 938 N.E.2d 507, 512 (Ill. 2010).
Defendants argue that the first element is not satisfied as to Dominick. Mem.
Supp. at 6. The Court agrees. Dominick was not present when Meza allegedly
battered Dembowski and Rocher, and he did not offer any evidence to support the
battery charges. Under these circumstances, Dominick cannot be said to have
commenced a criminal proceeding against Meza, no matter how much he may have
privately approved. Summary judgment is therefore entered in Dominick’s favor on
this claim.
21

Next Defendants argue that Meza has not satisfied the second element of a
malicious prosecution claim—termination of the proceeding in his favor. Mem.
Supp. 8–9. To satisfy this element, the plaintiff must establish that the case ended
“in a manner indicative of innocence.” Porter v. City of Chicago, 912 N.E.2d 1262,
1265 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). Defendants contend that the judge based his decision to
grant a new trial on a discovery violation by the prosecution, implying that Meza
got off on a technicality. Mem. Supp. at 9. Defendants also point out that the judge
opined Meza had committed disorderly conduct and a less serious form of
battery. Id.
Meza responds that he was acquitted of the charge relating to Rocher, and he
argues that, because he was not charged with disorderly conduct or another form of
battery, it is irrelevant that the judge thought he had committed those crimes.
Resp. Br. at 9–10. He also argues that Defendants are misconstruing the judge’s
explanation for vacating his conviction relating to Dembowski. Id.
The Court agrees with Meza that the criminal proceedings were terminated
in a manner indicative of innocence. The Seventh Circuit has held that “an acquittal
is clearly sufficient to show favorable termination” for purposes of malicious
prosecution in Illinois. Logan v. Caterpillar, Inc., 246 F.3d 912, 926 (7th Cir. 2001).
And the judge’s decision to vacate Meza’s conviction for battering Dembowski was
an acknowledgement that Meza should have been acquitted of that charge because
the evidence offered at trial was insufficient for conviction. See Pls.’ Ex. 26, Hearing
Trans., at 7–11. The discovery violation primarily mattered because, as Meza

22

argued in his motion for a new trial, he might have been able to use Dembowski’s
medical records to undermine his assertions of injury. Id.; Pls.’ Ex. 31, New Trial
Mot., ¶ 5.
Defendants also argue that Meza cannot satisfy the third element of a
malicious prosecution claim—the absence of probable cause. Mem. Supp. at 7–8. As
they see it, probable cause for the prosecution existed based on the statements of
Dembowski, Rocher, and the women working with them on sting operations. Id.
But the appropriate question is not whether the prosecutor had probable
cause to believe Meza committed battery. When the defendants in a malicious
prosecution action are police officers or complaining witnesses rather than
prosecutors, the question is whether the defendants themselves had probable cause
to believe the offence had been committed at the time they initiated the criminal
proceeding. See Gauger v. Hendle, 954 N.E.2d 307, 329 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011) (“The
existence of probable cause in a malicious-prosecution action is determined by
looking to what the defendants knew at the time of subscribing a criminal
complaint and not at the (earlier) time of arrest.”); see also Stokes v. Bd. of Educ. of
the City of Chi., 599 F.3d 617, 626 (7th Cir. 2010) (“The fact that [Principal] Banks
had probable cause to sign the criminal complaints for the Stokes’ arrest means
that defendants are also entitled to summary judgment on these supplemental
state-law claims.”)
Meza has offered sufficient evidence at the summary judgment stage to
satisfy the absence-of-probable cause element as to Dembowski and Rocher. If

23

Meza’s testimony is believed (as it must be at this stage), neither Dembowski nor
Rocher ever had probable cause to believe he had committed battery. Meza says he
did not touch Dembowski or Rocher, meaning that their statements that he did so
must be lies. And Dembowski and Rocher obviously would be well aware under
those circumstances that the statements of the underage women were false as well.
Polk, however, is differently situated. Although he may have arrested Meza
without probable cause at first, his subsequent interviews of the underage women
gave him probable cause for the prosecution. Polk may have known or believed that
their accounts were fabrications, but Meza has offered no evidence from which a
jury could draw that conclusion. Summary judgment must therefore be entered in
Polk’s favor on this claim.
Finally, Defendants argue that Meza has not presented evidence that
Defendants acted with malice, and so has not satisfied the fourth element of a
malicious prosecution claim. Mem. Supp. 9–10. As Meza points out, however, “in the
context of malicious prosecution,” malice means simply “that the officer who
initiated the prosecution had any motive other than that of bringing a guilty party
to justice.” Williams v. City of Chi., 733 F.3d 749, 759–60 (7th Cir. 2013). If
Dembowski and Rocher falsely reported that Meza had hit them, they certainly
acted with malice.
b. Count VI – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
As explained, the Court ruled in an earlier opinion that Meza’s intentional
infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim is timely only insofar as it is tied to his

24

malicious prosecution claim. La Playita Cicero, Inc. v. Town of Cicero, No. 11 CV
1702, 2014 WL 944859, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2014). The claim is timely to that
extent because “IIED claims based on facts alleged in parallel claims for malicious
prosecution accrue only when state criminal proceedings are terminated,” Carroccia
v. Anderson, 249 F.Supp.2d 1016, 1028 (N.D. Ill. 2003), and Meza’s criminal case
did not conclude until the latter half of 2010.
To prove an IIED claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) the
defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (2) the emotional distress
suffered by the plaintiff was severe; and (3) the defendant knew that severe
emotional distress was certain or substantially certain to result from its conduct.”
Miller v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 537 N.E.2d 887, 888 (Ill. App. Ct.
1989). Meza contends that Defendants’ conduct and the distress he suffered from
his prosecution on false charges satisfies these elements.
Defendants disagree and first argue that their conduct did not rise to the
level of “extreme and outrageous.” Mem. Supp. at 10. To be extreme and
outrageous, conduct “must go beyond all bounds of decency and be considered
intolerable in a civilized community.” Fox v. Hayes, 600 F.3d 819, 842 (7th Cir.
2010). A defendant’s conduct is more likely to be extreme and outrageous if the
defendant “abused a position of authority.” Id. Furthermore, “[t]his Court and
others have held that a law enforcement officer’s fabrication of evidence, or
concealment of exculpatory evidence, to criminally inculpate an innocent person is
sufficiently extreme and outrageous to give rise to a claim for intentional infliction

25

of emotional distress.” Manning v. United States, No. 02-cv-372, 2006 WL 3240112,
at *36 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2006) (collecting cases).
The Court concludes that, if Dembowski and Rocher falsely accused Meza of
battering them, a reasonably jury could find that their conduct rose to the level of
extreme and outrageous. They were in a position of authority, and they knew that
Meza could be prosecuted and even jailed based on their accusations. See, e.g.,
Holder v. Ivanjack, 39 F.Supp.2d 965, 969–70 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (police officers’ false
battery accusation could support IIED claim); Wallace v. City of Zion, No. 11C2859,
2011 WL 3205495, at *6 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 2011) (defendant’s false report to police
that plaintiff had committed a crime could support IIED claim). But there is no
evidence that the conduct of Dominick and Polk rose to the level of extreme and
outrageous in connection with Meza’s prosecution, so summary judgment must be
granted on this claim as to them.
Defendants next argue that Meza has provided insufficient evidence of severe
emotional distress because a psychologist who evaluated Meza attributed his severe
distress to the long campaign against him rather than to the battery charges in
particular. Mem. Supp. 10–11. Meza counters that the evaluation does partly
attribute his distress—which included suicidal ideation—to the battery charges.
Resp. Br. at 12–13. Indeed, the evaluation was conducted while Meza awaited trial
on those charges, and the psychologist reported that Meza had given up on Serenata
altogether while he was sitting in jail after his arrest. Pls.’ Ex. KK (filed under
seal), Marshall Report, at 4. In light of this record, a reasonable jury could find that

26

Meza’s emotional distress connected to his criminal prosecution was severe enough
to support his IIED claim.
B. The Town of Cicero
Meza has brought claims against Cicero in both case no. 11-cv-5561 and case
no. 11-cv-1702. The only difference between the claims in the two cases is that the
claims in no. 11-cv-5561 cover the entire time period beginning in 2006, while those
in no. 11-cv-1702 are timely only as to events after February 11, 2009. As a practical
matter, only the claims in no. 11-cv-5561 need be considered because they
encompass those in the other case, and Meza cannot recover twice for the same
injuries.
Under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436
U.S. 658, 694 (1978), “a plaintiff must show that his constitutional injury was
caused by (1) the enforcement of an express policy of the [public entity], (2) a
widespread practice that is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom
or usage with the force of law, or (3) a person with final policymaking authority.”
Wragg v. Vill. of Thornton, 604 F.3d 464, 467–68 (7th Cir. 2010).
Cicero does not have an explicit policy of discrimination or retaliation, and
Meza has offered insufficient evidence of a widespread practice, 14 so his remaining
path to establishing municipal liability is to show that his constitutional injury was
caused by a final policymaker. Even a single unconstitutional act by a final
Meza identifies numerous Cicero businesses that were (1) Hispanic-owned, (2) did
not donate to Dominick’s political organization, and (3) were ticketed for liquor violations.
Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶¶ 67–75. But without testimony from the owners that these citations were
the product of unfair targeting, a reasonable jury could not infer a widespread practice from
these facts alone.
14

27

policymaker can be enough for Monell liability. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475
U.S. 469, 481 (1986) (“[W]here action is directed by those who establish
governmental policy, the municipality is equally responsible whether that action is
to be taken only once or to be taken repeatedly”); Valentino v. Vill. of S. Chi.
Heights, 575 F.3d 664, 675 (7th Cir. 2009) (“It is well-established that when a
particular course of action is directed by those who set municipal policy, the
municipality is responsible under section 1983, even if the action in question is
undertaken only once.”).
Whether an official is a final policymaker is a question of state law, and
courts rather than juries are tasked with making that determination. Jett v. Dallas
Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989) (“As with other questions of state law
relevant to the application of federal law, the identification of those officials whose
decisions represent the official policy of the local governmental unit is itself a legal
question to be resolved by the trial judge before the case is submitted to the jury.”);
McGee v. Bauer, 956 F.2d 730, 733 (7th Cir. 1992) (“[W]hether a local official is a
policymaker is a question of law to be decided by the trial judge before the case is
submitted to a jury.”). To identify a final policymaker, courts review “the relevant
legal materials, including state and local positive law, as well as ‘custom or usage
having the force of law.’” Killinger v. Johnson, 389 F.3d 765, 771 (7th Cir. 2004)
(quoting Jett, 491 U.S. at 737). Final policymakers “possess ‘[r]esponsibility for
making law or setting policy,’ that is, ‘authority to adopt rules for the conduct of
government.’” Rasche v. Vill. of Beecher, 336 F.3d 588, 599 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting

28

Auriemma v. Rice, 957 F.2d 397, 401 (7th Cir. 1992). For a policymaker’s single
unconstitutional act to create liability under Monell, the unconstitutional act must
have been taken within the realm of the policymaker’s actual policymaking
authority. Valentino, 575 F.3d at 675.
Dominick, as Liquor Commissioner, was a quintessential final policymaker
for Cicero. Under state law, a “local liquor control commissioner may revoke or
suspend any license issued by him”—including for violations of rules “established by
the local liquor control commissioner” himself—and also may “levy a fine for such
violations.” 235 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-5. A hearing must be held, but following the
hearing, the Commissioner is the person who determines whether to impose a
penalty. Id. As Dominick testified, he made the ultimate decision about whether
and how Cicero would punish liquor code violations. See Pls.’ Ex. 5 (Dominick Dep.)
at 63. Although “meaningful review” of an official’s decision can undermine their
status as a final policymaker, see Valentino, 575 F.3d 664, 676 (7th Cir. 2009), and
Dominick’s decisions to suspend or revoke a liquor license could be overturned by
the Illinois Liquor Commission, see 235 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-5, the Commission lacks
the authority to decide how Cicero officials will investigate licensees or whom they
will target. That was up to Dominick, and as Town President as well as Liquor
Commissioner, no one was overseeing those decisions. He did delegate some of his
authority to Deputy Commissioner Dembowski, but Dominick remained actively
involved with liquor code enforcement by, for example, conducting surveillance
himself and triggering sting operations by sending complaints to Dembowski. Pls.’

29

Resp. Defs.’ SOF ¶ 4; Pls.’ Add’l Facts ¶¶ 16–20. The result is that, if a jury were to
find that Dominick, while acting in his capacity as Liquor Commissioner,
discriminated against Meza because he is Mexican or retaliated against Meza
because of his political opinion, Cicero is liable for those actions under Monell.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons given, Defendants’ consolidated motion for summary
judgment [ECF 68 (11-cv-5561); ECF 335 (11-cv-1702)] is granted on Meza’s state
law claims as to Dominick and Polk. The motion is otherwise denied. A status
hearing will be held 4/7/16 at 9:15 a.m. to set a date for trial.

SO ORDERED

ENTER: 3/30/16
________________________________________
JOHN Z. LEE
United States District Judge

30