criticizing the Department and the Board.
ANALYSIS
Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement

Defendants move fora more definite statement, stating that Plaintiffs must (1) plead the dates
upon which the promotions were denied; (2) specify the names of the political opponents Plaintiffs
supported; (3) specify the unfavorable testimony given, explain why it was unfavorable and state
when the testimony was given; and (4) specify the dates upon which Plaintiffs were criticized.

Rule 12(e) provides that “[i]f a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so
vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the
party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading.” Rule 12(e)
“makes it plain that the rule is designed to strike at unintelligibility rather than want of detail. Ifthe
pleading meets the requirements of Rule 8 . . . and fairly notifies the opposing party of the nature of
the claim, a motion for a more definite statement should not be granted.” Wishnick v. One Stop Food
& Liquor Store, Inc., 60 F.R.D. 496, 498 (N.D. lil. 1973); see also Scholz Design, Inc. v. Buralli, No.
01 C 3650, 2001 WL 1104647 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2001); Trans States Airlines v. Pratt & Whitney
Canada, Inc., No. 92 C 1658, 1992 WL 211023 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 1992). “A motion for a more
definite statement should not be used to obtain factual details or as a substitute for discovery.” Trans
States Airlines, 1992 WL 211023, at *2.

The complaint fairly notifies Defendants of the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims. The allegations
in the complaint are neither vague nor ambiguous. Plaintiffs claim that they were denied promotions
because they supported Genova’s political opponents, criticized and contested the Department’s and

the Board’s policies and practices, and testified in civil actions against Defendants. The complaint

-4-


Ill. filed Apr. 16, 1998).

At some time, as a result of his support of Genova’s political opponents, testimony in the
above-named civil actions and complaints about the residency requirement: (1) Zorzi’s on-the-job
conduct was investigated and subjected to unwarranted scrutiny; (2) he was targeted for discipline
by his superiors and command staff, including Defendant George Vallis (“Vallis”), the Chief of
Police; and (3) he was denied a promotion to captain on two separate occasions despite the fact that
he was more qualified than those who were promoted. All of the named Defendants participated in
the denial of Zorzi’s promotion.

Plaintiffs, Kevin P. Glaser (“Glaser”) and Bernard Begeske (“Begeske”), have been Calumet
City police officers since December 16, 1990 and September 16, 1988, respectively. Glaser and
Begeske are the Vice President and President of the Union, respectively. The complaint alleges that
Begeske and Glaser have been denied promotions to sergeant despite the fact that they were more
qualified and had more seniority than those who were actually promoted because they (1) spoke
against the Department’s and the Board’s policies and practices; (2) criticized the Department’s and
the Board’s ability to execute the public trust and protect the safety of the citizens of Calumet City;
(3) gave unfavorable deposition testimony in Cap v. City of Calumet City and Alvarado v. Genova,
and, in the case of Begeske, civil actions by officers who were discharged for violating the residency
requirement; and (4) supported Genova’s opponents in the 1997 and 2001 elections.

Defendants Gigliotti, Ida Galloway (“Galloway”), Daniel Balog (“Balog”), Juan Lopez
Acosta (“Acosta”), and William Borah (“Borah”), members of the Board, lowered the points
awarded for seniority to allow officers with less experience to be promoted to sergeant before Glaser

and Begeske due to Glaser’s and Begeske’s conduct in supporting Genova’s opponents and

-3-


further alleges that the denial of promotions in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ exercise of their First
Amendment rights violates § 1983. The identity of Genova’s political opponents, the content of
Plaintiffs’ testimony, and when they were denied promotions are factual details, which can be
ascertained through discovery. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement is
denied.

Gigliotti’s Motion to Dismiss

Gigliotti moves to dismiss, arguing that the complaint does not allege that he violated
Plaintiffs’ rights under § 1983 but merely that he was a member of the Board. Gigliotti states that
he is not a member of the Board. Plaintiffs did not file a response to Gigliotti’s Motion to Dismiss
but sought leave to file an amended complaint.

When considering a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are accepted
as true. Turner/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power, \1\ F.3d 1312, 1319 (7th Cir. 1997). Any ambiguities
in the complaint are construed in favor of the plaintiff. Kelly v. Crosfield Catalysts, 135 F.3d 1202,
1205 (7th Cir. 1998). Dismissal is proper only when it appears beyond doubt that Plaintiffcan prove
no set of facts to support the allegations in his or her claim. Strasburger v. Board of Education, 143
F.3d 351, 359 (7th Cir. 1998).

The complaint alleges that Gigliotti was a member of the Board at the time the points
awarded to seniority were reduced. The complaint also alleges that the Board took this action to
prevent Glaser’s and Begeske’s promotions because they supported Genova’s political opponents,
criticized and contested the Department’s and the Board’s policies and practices, and testified in suits
against Defendants. It is clear that some set of facts exist that would support the allegations in

Plaintiffs’ claim. Strasburger, 143 F.3d at 359. Moreover, whether Gigliotti was a member of the

-5-


Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

Name of Assigned Judge John W. Darrah Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 6268 DATE 4/22/2003 J
CASE DANTE G. ZORZI, et al vs. CITY OF CALUMET CITY, IL
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(i)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(”)
(8)
(9)

(10)

ay

a

OoOogooonod 00 CO

present. Enter memorandum opinion and order. Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement is
denied, and Gigliotti’s motion to dismiss is denied.

Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Brief in support of motion duc

Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.

Ruling/Hearing on setfor at

Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—sset fort

Pretrial conference[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on__—s set for at.
Trial[set for/re-set for}on__at

[Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_ at

This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 CUFRCP4I1(a)\(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

{Other docket entry] Status hearing held and continued to 5/6/03 at 9:00 a.m, both parties to be

{For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AQ 450 form,

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

umber of notices

APR 23 20

date dockered ~~

Pekesing depliyinitats )

LG

dace mailed notice

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
Scentral.Clerk’s Office

mailing deputy initials



Board at the relevant time is a question of fact and, therefore, not appropriate for consideration on
a motion to dismiss. Therefore, Gigliotti’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement is denied,

and Gigliotti’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. ,

IT IS SO ORDERED. ~

John W. Darrah, Judge
\United/States District Court

Date: 2, 4.00

-6-


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DANTE G. ZORZI, KEVIN P. GLASER, ) weer
A ue 1)
and BERNARD BEGESKE, MACS
93 2002
Plaintiffs, apr 23
Case No. 02 C 6268
Vv.

Honorable John W. Darrah
CITY OF CALUMET CITY, ILLINOIS,
a municipal corporation; JEROME P.
GENOVA, individually and in his
official capacity as Mayor of Calumet
City, Illinois; CALUMET CITY CHIEF
OF POLICE GEORGE VALLIS,
individually and in his official capacity;
DOMINICK GIGLIOTTI, individually
and in his official capacity; IDA
GALLOWAY, individually and in her
official capacity; DANIEL BALOG,
individually and in his official capacity;
JUAN LOPEZ ACOSTA, individually
and in his official capacity; and
WILLIAM BORAH, individually and in
his official capacity,

Defendants.

wee ee Se He Se YS HSS YS YS we Swe eee

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, Dante G. Zorzi, Kevin P. Glaser, and Bernard Begeske (collectively “Plaintiffs”),
filed a single-count complaint against Defendants, Calumet City, Jerome P. Genova, the former
Mayor of Calumet City; George Vallis, Chief of the Calumet City Police Department; Dominick
Gigliotti, the interim mayor of Calumet City; Ida Galloway; Daniel Balog; Juan Lopez Acosta; and
William Borah (collectively “Defendants”), alleging a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation

in violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of association.

-1-

D


Defendant, Dominick Gigliotti (“Gigliotti”), moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss the complaint. Defendants move, pursuant to Rule 12(e), for a more
definite statement. For the reasons that follow, Gigliotti’s Motion to Dismiss is denied, and
Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement is denied.

BACKGROUND

For the purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, the following allegations are accepted as true.

Plaintiff, Dante P. Zorzi (“Zorzi”) has been a Calumet City police officer since
August 4, 1984. Zorzi is now a lieutenant in the Calumet City Police Department (“the
Department”). In 1997, Zorzi was on the executive board of Lodge 1 of the Fraternal Order of Police
(“the union”), the union that represented Calumet City police officers. In or around September 1997,
Zorzi and other officers formed a committee to address concerns that rank-and-file officers had with
the Calumet City residency requirement. If the residency requirement were enforced, several officers
would have been terminated.

In September 1997, Zorzi met with Defendant, Jerome P. Genova (“Genova”), who was the
mayor of Calumet City at that time, to discuss the residency requirement. Genova stated that all
officers who were violating the residency requirement would be terminated. After the enforcement
of the residency requirement, several officers were, in fact, terminated for violating the residency
requirement.

Between 1997 and 2001, Zorzi supported political opponents of Genova in mayoral races in
Calumet City. Zorzi gave deposition testimony unfavorable to Calumet City and other Defendants
in lawsuits filed by officers who alleged gender and race discrimination in Cap v. City of Calumet

City, No. 00 C 4226 (N.D. Ill. filed July 12, 2000), and Alvarado v. Genova, No. 98 C 2327 (N.D.

-2-