Jackson v. City Of Chicago et al

Filing 63

ORDER. Defendant City of Chicago's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims forwillful and wanton conduct (Count IV) and intentional spoliation of evidence (Count VII, mislabeled in the amended complaint as a second Count V) 27 is granted in part and denied in part. [For further details see order.] Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 3/30/2017. Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
SHAMIRE JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 15 C 11096
Judge Jorge L. Alonso

ORDER
Before the Court is the defendant City of Chicago’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for
willful and wanton conduct (Count IV) and intentional spoliation of evidence (Count VII, mislabeled
in the amended complaint as a second Count V) [27], which is granted in part and denied in part as
follows.
The City argues that Count IV is duplicative of Count V, which asserts a respondeat superior
claim against the City based on the officers’ alleged willful and wanton conduct. Although plaintiff
asserts that a respondeat superior claim is “proper,” he fails to address the argument that Counts IV
and V allege the same claim. Because the Seventh Circuit has indicated that duplicative claims
should be dismissed, Hoagland ex rel. Midwest Transit, Inc. v. Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard,
P.C., 385 F.3d 737, 744 (7th Cir. 2004), the City’s motion is granted as to Count IV, which is
dismissed.
As for plaintiff’s spoliation claim, the City contends that it should be dismissed because
Illinois does not recognize such a claim. It is true that Illinois does not recognize a tort of
intentional spoliation of evidence, Borsellino v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., 477 F.3d 502, 510 (7th
Cir. 2007) (citing Illinois law), but dismissal is not the appropriate consequence. In Borsellino, for
instance, the Seventh Circuit simply analyzed the plaintiff’s intentional spoliation claim as a
negligence claim. The City contends that even if the Court allowed plaintiff to proceed on a

negligence theory, the claim would still fail as a matter of law because plaintiff alleges that the City
destroyed relevant in-car video recordings, which “implicates the administrative discretionary
actions of City employees” and thus falls within the scope of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. (City’s
Mot. at 8.) But the circumstances of the destruction of the recordings are matters outside the
pleadings that the Court will not consider on a motion to dismiss, and it would be premature to
convert the City’s motion into a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the City’s motion to
dismiss is denied as to plaintiff’s spoliation claim.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: March 30, 2017

____________________________________
JORGE L. ALONSO
United States District Judge

2