1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

STEPHEN E. EBERHARDT, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

VILLAGE OF TINLEY PARK, a Municipal

Corporation, JACOB C. VANDENBERG,

Mayor/Village President, MICHAEL W. GLOTZ,

Trustee/Mayor Pro-Tem, DAVID J. NIEMEYER,

Village Manager, PAUL O’GRADY, Village Attorney,

PATRICK CONNELLY, Village Attorney, and

DOUGLAS S. SPALE, former Village Attorney,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

20 C 3269

Judge Gary Feinerman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In February 2020, Stephen Eberhardt, an attorney representing himself pro se, filed a suit

(not this one) against the Village of Tinley Park and several of its officials. Eberhardt v. Vill. of 

Tinley Park, No. 20 C 1171, Doc. 1 (N.D. Ill.) (Norgle, J.) (“Eberhardt I”). The complaint 

contains 102 pages, 564 numbered paragraphs, and 19 counts, so it is difficult to summarize, but 

its gist was that the defendants had manipulated the rules and procedures of Tinley Park Village 

Board meetings in violation of Eberhardt’s rights under the First Amendment and Illinois law. 

Ibid. Eberhardt names as defendants the Village of Tinley Park, its mayor, clerk, mayor pro tem, 

village manager, assistant village manager, and various others, including its outside counsel. Id. 

at ¶¶ 12-22. Eberhardt seeks the following relief: (1) a declaration that a particular village 

ordinance is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement; (2) a declaration that the 

Village must accommodate anonymous public comments at its meetings; (3) a declaration that 

certain Village Board meeting rules are unconstitutional; (4) a declaration that certain 

Case: 1:20-cv-03269 Document #: 56 Filed: 11/09/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:634
2

impediments to his ability to engage with the Village’s social media are unconstitutional, and an 

injunction removing those impediments; (5) punitive damages; (6) disclosure of records relating 

to Village policies, and a declaration that the failure to make those records available violates 

Illinois law; and (7) a declaration that the Village’s counsel lacked the authority to represent it, 

an injunction against counsel’s continued representation of the Village, and an order requiring 

counsel to reimburse the Village taxpayers for any fees. Id. at ¶ 8.

In June 2020, Eberhardt, again representing himself pro se, filed this suit

(“Eberhardt II”). Doc. 1. This court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Civil 

Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b), Doc. 48, and Eberhardt filed an amended complaint, Doc. 49. Like 

Eberhardt I, this suit names as defendants the Village of Tinley Park and its mayor, mayor pro 

tem, and village manager. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 8-11; Doc. 49 at ¶¶ 8-11. This suit also names three 

village attorneys. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 12-14; Doc. 49 at ¶¶ 12-14. The original complaint contained 110 

pages, 675 numbered paragraphs, and 25 counts. Doc. 1. It, too, is hard to summarize, but its

gist is the same as that of Eberhardt I—that the defendants manipulated the rules and procedures 

for Village Board meetings in violation of Eberhardt’s rights under the First Amendment and 

Illinois law. Ibid. As relief, Eberhardt seeks various declarations and injunctions giving him the 

opportunity to speak on topics of his own choosing at Village Board meetings, as well as 

punitive damages. Doc. 1 at pp. 53, 55-56, 58-59, 61-76, 78, 80, 82-85, 87-88, 90, 92-93, 95-96, 

98-99, 101, 104, 106-07. The amended complaint is slimmed down a bit, weighing in at 66 

pages, 405 numbered paragraphs, and 19 counts, but its gist and requested relief are materially 

identical to those of the original complaint. Doc. 49.

A district court may dismiss a suit “whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already 

pending.” Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221, 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation 

Case: 1:20-cv-03269 Document #: 56 Filed: 11/09/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:635
3

marks omitted). A dismissal on this ground does not require that the later suit be identical to the 

former suit. Rather, “a suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not 

significantly differ between the two actions.” Ibid. (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). A district court is “accorded a great deal of latitude and discretion in determining 

whether one action is duplicative of another.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Eberhardt himself recognizes the close similarity between his two suits, as he moved the 

judge presiding over Eberhardt I to issue an order under Local Rule 40.4 reassigning 

Eberhardt II to that judge’s calendar. Eberhardt I, ECF No. 62. In his motion, Eberhardt

described Eberhardt I as “seek[ing] redress for the Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment rights as well violations of the Illinois Open Meetings Act and Freedom of 

Information Act based on a pattern and practice of rules, policies, practices, procedures, customs 

and/or usages that resulted in content-based viewpoint discrimination as well as other issues,” 

and he described Eberhardt II as “naming some of the same and adding some additional 

Defendants that also seeks redress for the Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s First Amendment 

rights based the continuing actions of the Defendants that constitute and evidence a further 

pattern and practice of rules, policies, practices, procedures customs and/or usages that resulted 

in content-based viewpoint discrimination that violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights that 

occurred subsequent to the filing of the Complaint herein.” Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4. And Eberhardt argued 

that both suits “involve the same issues of fact and law, and ... arise generally out of transactions 

and occurrences that are the same and similar transactions and occurrences that continued after

the filing of” Eberhardt I. Id. at ¶ 7. The defendants in Eberhardt I do not object to Eberhardt’s 

Local Rule 40.4 motion. Eberhardt I, ECF No. 83.

Case: 1:20-cv-03269 Document #: 56 Filed: 11/09/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:636
4

A review of the two suits reveals that the correct course is to dismiss this suit as 

duplicative of Eberhardt I. As outlined above, the two suits share significant overlap as to

(1) the named defendants, (2) the alleged facts, (3) the asserted legal rights, and (4) the requested 

relief. See Serlin, 3 F.3d at 223-24. There are no “special factors counseling for ... exercise of 

jurisdiction” over this suit. Id. at 224. Allowing this suit to proceed, accordingly, would not 

advance “wise judicial administration.” Id. at 223. Given the factual and legal overlap between 

the two suits, any events that have occurred since Eberhardt initiated Eberhardt I are proper 

fodder for an amended complaint there, not any complaint in this materially identical suit.

This suit is dismissed. The dismissal of course is without prejudice to Eberhardt pressing 

his claims in Eberhardt I. 

November 9, 2020 ___________________________________

United States District Judge

Case: 1:20-cv-03269 Document #: 56 Filed: 11/09/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:637