H on. Ly n n S. Ad el m an, ofthe Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t Court  f or the Eas t er n Di s t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 1867 C H I CA GO R EGIONAL C OUN CIL OF C ARP EN TERS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. V IL LAGE OF S CH AU M BURG , etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C5425

— George W. Lindberg, Judge
.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 18, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AY 2, 2011

Befo re P O SNER an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges , a nd A DE LMA N , D i s t r i ctJudg e .  W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Chi cago Regio nal Counci l o f Ca r pe nt e r s ( “ the Uni o n” ) fi l e d a n a c t i o n un de r 4 2 U
. S

. C. § 1 983 aga i nst th e V ill age o fS chaum burg, the own ero f2 N o. 10

- 1867 th e S ch au m bur gRe na i ss an ce H o te l, a ss er tingtha t th e V i l l a g e h a d v i o l a t e d i t s F i r s t Ame n d me n t r i g h t s . The Uni o n c hi efl y c o m pl aine d tha t, i n Augu st 200 9, the Vi l l ag e den i ed i ts r eque stt o s ta g e a pr o te ston th e H ot el’s p r o p e r ty . In N ov em b er 20 09 , w h ile th e la w su it w as pend i ng, the Vil l age deni ed a seco nd r equest f ro m the Union to al l ow tw o ofi ts m em b er s to dist ribute pam phlet s a t the ent ra nce o fthe H ote l

. In re sponse to the Vi l l age ’ s m oti on f orsum m ary j u dgm ent with re spect to th e A u gu st 20 09 in c id en t, th e U n ion d isc u ss ed on ly th e Vi l l ag e’ s r efus ali n Nov embe r 2 00 9 to pe r m i t th e l eafl ett i ng; i t s aid nothi ng ab out the Au gust i nci dent. The di st r i ctc o ur t en te r ed su m m ar y j udg m en t for the Vil l age , not i ng tha t the U ni on’ s co m pla i nt had bee n fi l ed bef or e the N ove m ber 2009 acti on and he nc e d id not add re ss any e ve n ts thato ccurr ed afteri ts fi l i ng. T h e Un i o n a p p e a l s , a ss er t i n ge s s e n t i a l l y th a tth e t wo i n c i d e n t s w e r e p a r to fa s i n g l e w r o n gb y th e Vi l l a g e . We conclud e that the di str i ct c ourtpro perly unders too d th e c o mp l a i n t, a n d w e th e r e f o r e a ffi r m.

I I n the su m m ero f2 00 9, the Uni o n b eg anr epr es en ting the ho useke epi ng st aff ofthe Schaum burg Renai ssa nce H ot el in co llec tiv e b ar ga in in g n e g ot iat ion s. H av in g h it a r o a d b l o c ki n th e d i s c u s s i o n s , i td e c i d e d t o s t a g e s o me dem onst ra ti ons. On A ugust 1 8, 20 09, the U nion st age d a m ockfuneralpro cess i on o n the H ote l pre m i ses . Du ring this pro cess i on, the Schaum burg pol i ce di re cted th e Un i o n t o k e e p th e n o i s e l ev el do wna n d t o f o l l o w aN o. 10

- 1867 3 spe ci fi ed r o ut e. Af te r a shor t di sc us si o n b etwee n the a t torne ys rep resen ting both sides, these term s w ere agr eed to and the m ockfuneralpro ceed ed witho ut a h i t c h

. R e l y i n g o n th e a s s u mp t i o n th a t th e s a me t e r ms woul d a ppl y i n the futur e, the Uni o n inf o r m ed th e pol ice t hat i t intended to und er tak e a si m i l ardem onst ra ti o n o n Aug us t 31 , 2 00 9. Butthi ng s di d no t g o a s th e Uni o n had expec te d. As i ts mem be r s appr o ac he d the H ote l o n A ugust 3 1, the pol i ce r efused to per m i t them to en te r th e p re m ise s. T h e U n ion p ro m p tl y file d th is case o n Se ptem ber2, 2009; i t a l l ege d that the Vi l l age ha d v i o l a t e d the Uni o n’ s F i r s t Am e nd men t r i g ht s by r e s t r i c t i ngthe de mon s t r a t o r s ’ a c cess t o p ub l i c p r o per ty

— sp ec ifica lly, th e a re a o c c u p ied by th e H ot el. A s the ca se w as und er w ay, the U ni on co nti nued di scussi ons w i th the Vi l l age abo ut how i t m i ght dem ons trate atthe Hot el

. On N ovember6 , 2 00 9, the Uni o n s en t th e Vil l age a le tter re questi ng tha t tw o ofi ts vol unteer s be allo w ed to d ist rib u te p am p h let s a t t h e e n tr y oft h e H ot el. The Vil l age deni ed thi s r equest on N ove m ber19 , 20 09. B o th p a r t i e s th e n fi l e d c r o s s - mot i o n s f o r s u mm ar y j udg m en t. Aba ndo ni ng its cl ai m s r el at i ngt o the A ugust 31 dem onst ra ti on, the U ni on f ocuse d i ts m ot i on for su m m ar y jud g m e n t o nth e V illag e’s refu sa l to p er m it i ts m em ber s t o dist ribute pam phlet s in N ov em ber20 09. A t or a l a r g ume ntb e f o r e thi s c o ur t, the Uni o n e xp l a i ne d that i t had dro pp ed i ts com pla i n t about the Au gust 31 i nc i de ntb e c a us e i twa s p e r s ua de d tha t the F i r s tAmen dm ent j uri sprudence o n n on- pu bl i c f or um s would ba r re lief.4 N o. 10

- 1867 R e a s o n i n gth a to n c e th e U n i o n f o r fe i t e d i t s c l a i ms r el at i ngt o the Augus t 31 i nc i den t th er e was no th i ng re dress abl e l eft in the com pla i nt ( w h ich the U ni on neverpro perl y m ove d to supp l em ent purs u an t t o Fed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 15(d )) , the d ist r ict cou rt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe Vil l age o n M ar ch 24, 2010

. Onlythen did the U n ion fil e a m oti on under Rul es 1 5( a) ( 2) a nd 5 9( e) f o r l ea ve t o fi l e a se co nd am ended com p laint; the cour t deni ed that m oti on o n M ar ch 30.

II W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo , exam i ni ng the r ecord i n the l i ght m ost fav or ab le t o th e n on -m ov in g p ar ty
. E llis v. D H L E xp ress In c . ( USA) , 633 F.3d 522 , 525 (7th C ir. 2011). T he U nion ’s prim ary argu m en t is th at th e d ist rict court er r ed when i t co ns true d the Un ion ’ s su m m ar y j udg m en t m o t i o n a s ab a n d o n i n g a n y th e o r y r e l a t i n g t o t he A ugust 3 1 inci dent. W hat i t was r eal l y doing, t he U ni on n ow sa ys, was m er el y abandoni ng cl ai m s that depended on its righ t t o d em on st ra te o n p u b lic p ro p er ty . B u t, it now urg es, ther e was ano th er as pect t o the pl anned demons tr at i on: Uni o n v o l unt ee r s wer e g o i ngt o ha nd o ut l ea fl et s. W he n the Vi l l ag e den i ed th e U nion a cce ss t o the H otel, i t sim ultan eou s ly d e nied the U nion the op p ortuni ty to pass o ut i ts lit er atur e. The U ni on co ncl ud es bya ss er tingtha t i t i nt en ded to p r es er ve the l ea fl et i ng cl ai m s i n i ts s um m ar y j udg m en t m o ti o n.N o. 10

- 1867 5 U n for tu n at ely for t h e U n ion, t h i s a c c ou n t is im p os sib le to square with the r eco rd. To the co ntra ry, the U ni on m ade i t cl ear that i t w as f or fei ti ng all argum ents r e l a t i ngt o the Augus t3 1 de mon s t r a t i o n a nd , i ns t e a d, w as lim itin g its elf t o th e d en ial of t h e rig h t t o lea fl et in N ove m ber

. Thi s i s what i t wrot e in i ts sum m ar y j ud gm en t m oti on: “The Pl ai nti ffnow fo cuses, notupon i ts re quest t o dem onst ra te on publ i c pro perty, but i nstea d u p on its righ t t o c on d u c t le afle tin g on p u b l ic p ro p er ty in a p e a c e fu l a n d n o n - c o e r c i v e ma n n e r . ” In p r e s e n t i n gt he fac ts p er ti nent t o i ts m oti on, the U ni on di scusse s o nly th e N o ve m be r i nc i den t; i t ut te r ed no t a pee p abo uta ny den i alo fthe r i g htt o pa ss o utl ea fl et s du ri ngthe A ugu st 31 dem onst ra ti on. I t thus f or fei ted the l att er th eo ry an d m u st st an d or fa l l o n t h e N ov em b er d en ial. Li b e r l e s v. County of

Cook, 709 F.2d 112 2, 1 1 2 6 ( 7th Cir. 19 83 ) ( “I t i s a well

- set tl ed rul e that a party o pp osing a sum m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on m us t inf or m the tr i alj ud ge o fthe r ea so ns , l eg alo r f ac tu al, why su m m ar y j udg m en t sh o ul d no t be en te r ed. I fi t do es no t do s o , a nd l o se s th e m otion, it cann ot raise such reason s on ap p eal. ”). I n l i ght o fthi s, the dist ri ct cou rt co rr ectly g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent. N or m al l y, a com pla i nt can see k re lief on ly for ev en ts th at h av e a lre ad y oc c u rre d

. G rain Tr ad e rs , In c . v. C i t i b an k, N. A. , 160 F.3d 97, 105 (2d C ir. 1 9 9 8 )

. ( A p er so n s e e k i n gi nj u n c t i v e r e l i e fmu s ts h o w a like lih oo d of su b s t an tia l an d im m ed iat e irr ep ar ab le i nj u ry and the i nadequ acy ofa re m edy atl aw . S ee C ity o f Lo s A ng eles v. Lyo ns, 46 1 U. S

. 9 5, 1 03 ( 19 83 ) ( ci ting O ’ She a v. Li t t l e t on, 4 14 U. S

. 4 88 , 5 02 (1974) )

. Butthe pla i nti ffm ust s ti l l gr ound it s r i ght t o rel i efo n eve nts6 N o. 10

- 1867 described i n the com plain t, noto n m att er s that a ri se l a t e r . ) B e f o r e th e c o mp l a i n tma y b e b r o a d e n e d t o e n c o mpa s s s ub s e quente v e nt s , the p l a i nt i ffmus tmo v e t o s up pl e men ti t
. F e de r a l R ul e o fCi vi l Pr o c e du r e 1 5 ( d) p rovi des a m echani sm f ordoi ng j ust that: “[ o] n m oti on and rea sonab l e no ti ce, the cour t m ay, o n j us t ter m s, per m i t a par tyt o s er ve a s uppl ement alpl ea di ngs et ting out any t ra nsacti on, o ccurr ence, o r eve nt thathappened after the date of the ple ading to be s up ple m ented. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 1 5 ( d)

. I ti s wo r th un de r s c o r i ng, h o we v e r, that ther e i s no abs ol ute r i ght t o expand the case i n thi s way; the di str i ct c ourthas substa nti aldi scr eti on e i therto perm i t o r to de ny such a m oti on. In thi s ca se, the U ni on f i l e d i t s c o mpl a i n t o n S e p t e mb e r 2 , 2 0 0 9 , b u tt he on ly ev en t t h at it n o w i s co m p lain in g a b ou t o c c u rre d in N o ve m be r 2 00 9, t wo month s lat er . I t di d no t as kthe d ist ric t c ou rtto ac c ep t a su p p lem en t a l p lea d in g u n til afterthe cour t had den i ed i ts m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gmen t
. T he c o ur twa s we l l w i thi n i t s r i g ht s t o c o nc l ud e that thi s was to o l i ttl e, to o l ate
. That i s a l l we have to sayabo ut thi s l aw sui t. W e no te, h ow ev er , th at all m ay n otbe n otlost f o r th e U n ion . I t c an follow th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s a d vic e a n d f i l e a n ew su it f orthe N ove m ber20 09 inci dent. I t a pp ar entl y has bee n re l uctant to do so bec ause i t i s co ncern ed t hat i t m ay be f ac ed i m m edi at ely wi tha de fen se o fc l ai m o r i ss ue precl usi on. W e th ink i t be st not to com m ent o n that p os sib ility , b ec au se at th e m om en t it is pu re ly h y p ot h et ical

. W e no te only t hat the Vi l l age , havi ng i nsi ste d l oudlythatthe N ove m berev ents w er e enti re l y s epara te from the A ug us t even ts, m ay ha ve to live w ith th at ch ar-N o. 10

- 1867 7
acte ri zati on s houl d ther e be a new case. S ee Sm i t h v

. P o tter, 51 3 F
. 3d 781, 78 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( sta ti ng th at c l a i m p r e c l u s i o n “ d o e s no t b a r a s u i tb a s e d o n c l a i ms th at acc rue after a p revious su it w as fi led” ). * * * W e A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

5- 2- 11