Simic v City of Chicago
Filing
63
ORDER; Based on the foregoing, the City of Chicago's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 43 is granted. This Court denies Simic's motion to certify a class 2 based on the Seventh Circuit's holding that her la ck of standing to seek injunctive relief and damages on her own behalf also prevents her from seeking such relief on behalf of the putative class. Id. at 740. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 9/26/2017 Mailed notice (rth)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TAMARA SIMIC, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15 C 19
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
ORDER
Plaintiff Tamara Simic, on behalf of herself and a purported class filed a Complaint alleging
violations of her constitutional rights stemming from fines she received under for violations of City of
Chicago Municipal Code § 9-76-230. Following the Court’s denial of her motion for preliminary
injunction, Simic appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed this Court’s order on March 20, 2017. Simic v.
City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2017). Defendant City of Chicago thereafter filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction [43]. This Court grants the
motion for the reasons stated herein.
Statement
Simic was ticketed and fined $500 for using a mobile phone while driving, in violation of Chicago
Municipal Code § 9-76-230 (“Ordinance”). This ordinance specifically prohibits drivers from talking or
listening on the phone, sending or receiving text or electronic messages, and browsing the internet. Id.at §
9-76-230(a).Violating the ordinance may result in a fine of at least $90 and up to $500 per violation. See
Chi. Mun. Code § 9-4-020. This Court denied her motion for preliminary injunction after finding that
Simic had not shown that there was no adequate remedy at law and, even if she had, the City of Chicago
is a home rule unit, meaning that the City has expansive authority to enact regulations for the protection
of the public health, safety, and welfare. Dkt. 22, Simic v. City of Chicago, 15 C 19, at 2 (N.D. Ill. June 24,
2015).
The Seventh Circuit affirmed this Court’s denial of injunctive relief and further held that Simic
lacked standing to invoke federal jurisdiction. Simic, 851 F.3d at 738. To have Article III standing, Simic
must allege and be able to prove: (1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury
and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision. Id. (citing Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. ----, ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341, 189 L.Ed.2d
246 (2014)). “A plaintiff bears the burden of showing that she has standing for each form of relief
sought.” Id. (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 185, 120
S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000)). The Seventh Circuit concluded that Simic could not establish that she
had standing for either injunctive relief or monetary damages because she never paid a fine for her
violation of the Ordinance and the City voluntarily dismissed the enforcement action to collect the fine.
Additionally, the court held that Simic could not reasonably demonstrate a threat of future injury
sufficient to support standing for injunctive relief. The court found that Simic’s claimed threat of future
injury is conjectural because it is contingent on her having concrete plans to again use her cell phone while
driving, which would require her to violate a separate law, 625 ILCS 5/12-610.2, that she has not
challenged. Id.
In affirming this Court’s order, the Seventh Circuit invited this Court to consider dismissing the
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 740. This Court allowed briefing on the City of Chicago’s
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In support of standing, Simic argues that she did
not pay a fine because the City voluntarily dismissed the enforcement action and therefore under an
exception to the mootness doctrine her claim is not moot. That argument fails because the issue of
standing under Article III is distinct from mootness. Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. Bd. of Fire & Police Comm'rs of
City of Milwaukee, 708 F.3d 921, 928 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining that standing is evaluated at the time a suit
is filed whereas mootness occurs when a party with standing at the start of a case loses it due to
2
intervening events). Simic also argues that she has incurred nominal damages from hiring counsel and
paying for parking for court dates. This argument likewise fails because the Seventh Circuit determined
that these nominal costs did not constitute an injury to her constitutional rights. See Simic, 851 F.3d at 739.
Accordingly, this Court finds, as the Seventh Circuit did, that Simic lacks standing to pursue these claims.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the City of Chicago’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction [43] is granted. This Court denies Simic’s motion to certify a class [2] based on the Seventh
Circuit’s holding that her lack of standing to seek injunctive relief and damages on her own behalf also
prevents her from seeking such relief on behalf of the putative class. Id. at 740.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTERED:
Dated: September 26, 2017
____________________________________
SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?