Mi Misuac-Ordeg Form (0677)

‘ i)

United Sts District Court, Northern vist Por Illinois

/) Name of Assigned Judge James B. Moran Sitting Judge if Other

or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3629 DATE 7/22/2002
CASE Arthur Sheridan vs. Village of Bensenville etc.
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party tiling the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state bricfly the nature

of (he motion being presented.)

a)

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
q) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) im Brief in support of motion due
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer bricfdue___.
(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon set fort
(3) Q Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on__ssetfor__ os at__
(6) 0 Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on a
(7) im Trial[set for/re-set for]on, at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at
y) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agrcement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 OFRCP41(a)(1)  FRCP41(a)(2).
qo of [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff now seeks to remand,

contending that defendants lost their right to remove when they failed to do so within 30 days of the

service of the original complaint. The motion to remand is granted,

| [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in apen court.
No notices required, umtbes of potions
Notices mailed by judge’s staff: JUL 23 22

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

Docketing to muil nolives. t
Mail AO 450 form. as She deputy nile

Copy (o judge/magisteate judge.

6 4 Hd 22 ‘We 20 doto mited notice

courtroom
WAH depuly's
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



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

EASTERN DIVISION
ARTHUR SHERIDAN, ) "
) att
Plaintiffs, ) yes .
) 4 not
vs. ) No. 02 € 3629 AN
)
VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE, a body)
politic and corporate; et al., )
) "
Defendants, ) ~

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In a case filed in state court in DuPage County on December 14, 2001, plaintiff alleged
that the defendants, the Village of Bensenville and various public officials, destroyed a
building on his property without just compensation “in violation of plaintiff’s rights under the
1", 4", 5" and 14" Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Sections 1, 2, 6,
12, 15 and 23 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.” He asked for a writ of
mandamus directing the defendants to initiate an eminent domain proceeding. That complaint
was dismissed upon defendants’ motion, an amended complaint was apparently filed and
withdrawn, and a “Second Amended Complaint for Writ of Mandamus” was filed May 13,
2002, That complaint was promptly removed. Plaintiff now seeks to remand, contending that
defendants lost their right to remove when they failed to do so within 30 days of the service of
the original complaint, The motion to remand is granted,

Defendants, opposing the motion to remand, contend that the references in the original
complaint to federal constitutional rights are vague, and not until the second amended

complaint did the plaintiff sufficiently (although not sufficiently enough) set forth a federal


No. 02 C 3629 @ @ Page 2

claim, We disagree, There is, perhaps, a symbiotic relationship between the issues relating
to the removal and defendants’ motion to dismiss, Defendants contend that there can be no
federal constitutional claim because plaintiff has adequate state remedies, which he has not
pursued. Plaintiff says he is trying to pursue them; that is what his lawsuit is all about, But,
say defendants, mandamus to compel the village to initiate an eminent domain proceeding is
not the proper way to go. Plaintiff must bring an inverse condemnation proceeding seeking
damages. Plaintiff counters by contending that his petition for a writ is an inverse
condemnation proceeding,

‘We decline to jump into that controversy, What we do know is that plaintiff, from the
start, has claimed that governmental actors destroyed a commercial building on his land
without payment of just compensation in violation of specific federal constitutional rights,
Whether the violations of those rights triggers a right to an eminent domain proceeding, or
whether plaintiff must amend to sue directly for damages or for a declaration, we leave to the

state court.

JAMES B. MORAN
jor Judge, U, S. District Court
Ad, 2002.