need not conform to the strict pleading standards of 735 ILCS 5/3-
101 et seq.. Thus, City’s motion to dismiss is denied as to
paragraphs 13(a) and 13(b) of Taxicab’s complaint, but granted as
to paragraphs 14-17.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART.

ENT; ORDER:
Yy. 2 Z Buhh-
Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge

Dated: December 2 3 , 2002



dismissed. City is correct as to Taxicab’s attempt to seek review
of the merits of the agency’s decision. Illinois courts strictly
construe the requirement to name the agency as a defendant. See
Ellis v. Stanley, 235 Ill. App. 3d. 992, 994 (1992) (holding that
“plaintiff’s unexplained failure to name the [agency] and serve
summons within 35 days mandated dismissal of the complaint without
leave to amend.”).

Taxicab argues in response that naming the City of Chicago was
tantamount to naming BOAH, as the city may serve as an
administrative agency. The Ellis court explicitly rejected this
argument, finding that the sub-entity which entered the final
decision was the party contemplated by 735 ILCS 5/3-107. Ellis, 235
Ill. App. 3d at 995. See also New York Carpet World v. Dept. of
Employment Sec., 283 I1l. App. 3d 497, 500 (1996) (holding that the
party which made the final administrative decision from which
plaintiff was appealing had to be individually named and served,
even if the governmental entity of which it was an arm was named
and served). Thus, Taxicab has lost its opportunity to appeal
DOAH’s decision.

However, insofar as Taxicab’s complaint is not simply an
appeal of an administrative finding, but an accusation that the
named parties violated its constitutional right to due process, the
claim is sustainable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and this court has

jurisdiction to hear it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Such a claim



Minute Ordeeorm (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois

Name of Assigned Jud; i Sitting Judge if Oth
wor Matistrate Judge Elaine E. Bucklo than Ansigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 € 7770 DATE 12/23/2002
CASE M.Y. Taxicab, Inc. vs. Shoenberger, et al.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, .g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

@) o Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue___.

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on___setfor___at

(5) Oo Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ ss at_
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——ssetfor_ at
(7) 6 Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—_—at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) (Cl Local Rule 41.1 OO) FRCP41(a)(1) J FRCP41(a)(2).

do) =i [Other docket entry] _ Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part
defendants’ motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss is denied as to paragraphs 13 (a) and 13 (b) of the
complaint, but granted as to paragraphs 14-17. Discovery is ordered closed on 6/30/03. Any dispositive
motion shall be filed by 7/31/03. Ifno motion is filed, pretrial order will be due by 7/31/03; and response
to any motions in limine by 8/14/03. Pretrial conference set for 9/11/03 at 4:00 p.m. Trial set for 9/29/03
at 9:30 a.m.

(11) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court

2

No notices required.

number of notices

DEC 24 2002

a | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mait notices,

Mail AO 450 form, tuna JOIMts

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. way {asp
om 82:9 Hd 6295
MPy deputy ¢ 230 20
initials Ot aaLdetbge
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCKETED
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DEC 2 4 2002
EASTERN DIVISION

M.Y. TAXICAB, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 02 C 7770
CAROLINE SHOENBERGER, THE CITY OF

CHICAGO, MAYOR RICHARD M. DALEY, AND
PAMELA HARRIS,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.

On August 29, 2002, plaintiff M.Y. Taxicab, Inc. (“Taxicab”)
was sanctioned by the City of Chicago’s Department of
Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”). An administrative law judge found
that the company had violated city safety standards, ordered it to
pay a penalty of $925, and suspended its taxi medallion for fifteen
days. 35 days later, Taxicab appealed that decision by filing a
complaint for administrative review in the Circuit Court of Cook
County pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq.. The complaint alleged
that the administrative judgment violated both state and federal
law and named as defendants Caroline Schoenberger, Commissioner of
Consumer Services for the City of Chicago, Pamela Harris, the
administrative law judge who had decided the case, Mayor Richard M.
Daley, and the City of Chicago itself (collectively, “City”). City
removed the case to this court and now moves to dismiss the case

against it. I grant the motion in part and deny it in part.



II.

I first address the threshold question of whether removal of
this case was proper. Taxicab asks this court to review both the
merits of DOAH’s decision and the constitutionality of the
procedure by which it was reached. In City of Chicago v. Int’l
College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 166 (1997), the Supreme Court
held that where a plaintiff seeks both review on the merits of a
state administrative action and resolution of a federal question
arising from that action, and the defendant removes the case, a
federal district court may exercise its supplemental jurisdiction
over the state matters and decide all the questions presented by
the case. See also M&Z Cab Corp. v. City of Chicago, 18 F. Supp. 2d
941 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (Andersen, J.) (applying Int’l College of
Surgeons to a case involving the suspension of a taxicab license).
Taxicab’s state and federal claims are thus properly before me.

III.

735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seg. grants to the Circuit Courts of the
State of Illinois jurisdiction to review final decisions by
administrative agencies of the State of Illinois or of any of its
political subdivisions. 735 ILCS 5/3-107 states that “in any action
to review any final decision of an administrative agency, the
administrative agency ... shall be made [a] defendant.” City argues
that as DOAH, the deciding agency in this case, was not named a

defendant, Taxicab’s action is fatally defective and must be