Source: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180330_0000719.NIL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:24:32+00:00

Document:
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants.
Andrea R. Wood, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Richard Gonzalez is a police officer employed by Defendant City of Chicago. Gonzalez alleges that he was unlawfully suspended from his job for 30-days following an inadequate complaint and review process. Gonzalez's suspension was eventually reversed by the Circuit Court of Cook County. However, Gonzalez alleges that after the Circuit Court's decision, he was subjected to a campaign of retaliation carried out by various City of Chicago officials, police department superintendents and officers, and the Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7 (“FOP”). As a result, Gonzalez has filed this lawsuit, which includes 11 counts and 16 Defendants. Presently before the Court are four separate motions to dismiss Gonzalez's amended complaint filed by the various Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. Nos. 20, 25, 32, 39.) Following the briefing of the four motions, Gonzalez filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint and add Defendants. (Dkt. No. 73.) For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the motions to dismiss but also grants Gonzalez's motion to amend his complaint.
The Circuit Court issued its ruling on November 10, 2015. (Id. ¶ 54.) The Circuit Court held that because Defendants failed to fully comply with the required procedures for instituting a 30-day suspension, the suspension must be reversed as a violation of Gonzalez's due process rights. (Id. ¶ 56.) Neither side appealed the Circuit Court's findings. (Id. ¶ 57.) After the ruling, Defendants sent Gonzalez a settlement agreement letter. (Id. ¶ 58.) The settlement agreement proposed to resolve a grievance filed by Gonzalez and reduce Gonzalez's 30-day suspension to 15 days, while also removing certain violations from his record. (Id. ¶ 61.) The settlement agreement was entered into between FOP and the City of Chicago Police Department. (Id. ¶ 62.) According to Gonzalez, however, the grievance cited in the settlement letter had been withdrawn on October 23, 2015 and only resurrected after the Circuit Court's decision reversing Gonzalez's suspension. (Id. ¶ 60.) As a result, Gonzalez considers the settlement fraudulent.
At some point, Gonzalez was fired from his position as police officer. It is unclear from the amended complaint how exactly Gonzalez was fired but, on April 14, 2016, Gonzalez turned in his badge and identification card to the Chicago Police Department. (Id. ¶ 101.) This lawsuit followed on August 10, 2016.
As mentioned above, Gonzalez's amended complaint (which is currently the operative complaint) includes claims against 16 different Defendants. Those Defendants have organized themselves into four groups, each represented by separate counsel and pursuing its own motion to dismiss. Those four groups are as follows: (1) the City of Chicago, Caproni, and IPRA Investigator Lakenya White (together, “City Defendants”); (2) Superintendent McCarthy, Former Interim Superintendent John Escalante, Superintendent Eddie Johnson, Chief Juan Rivera, Chief Eugene Williams, Lieutenant Jacqueline Ellison, and Civilian Director of Human Resources Division Donald O'Neill (together, “Officer Defendants”); (3) FOP and First Vice President of the FOP Ray Casiano (together, “FOP Defendants”); and (4) Sergeant DeVito and Sergeant Zayas.
Defendants first argue that the claims asserted by Gonzalez are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Under that doctrine, “when a final judgment has been entered on the merits of a case, it is a finality as to the claim or demand in controversy, concluding parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” Highway J Citizens Grp. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 456 F.3d 734, 741 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 129-30 (1983)). Although generally “it is incorrect to grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of an affirmative defense” such as res judicata, see McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 892 n.2 (7th Cir. 2006), an exception to this rule exists when a plaintiff “admit[s] all the ingredients of an impenetrable defense” in his complaint and thereby pleads himself out of court. Xechem, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 372 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir. 2004).
Because an Illinois state court rendered the order at issue here, this Court applies Illinois law to determine whether res judicata bars Gonzalez's claims. See Long v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 560 (7th Cir. 1999). Under Illinois law, the doctrine of res judicata applies when there is “(1) a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) an identity of the causes of action; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies.” See Perkins v. Cty. of Cook, No. 13-cv-02430, 2014 WL 4783015, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2014); see also Rockford Mut. Ins. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co. and Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 925 F.2d 193, 195 (7th Cir. 1991). Here, only the second two elements are at issue. In addition, the party against whom res judicata is invoked must have had a “full and fair” opportunity to litigate the claim in the prior suit. Hicks v. Midwest Transit, Inc., 479 F.3d 468, 471 (7th Cir. 2007).
To determine whether two causes of action are the same, Illinois courts apply a “transactional test” under which “separate claims will be considered the same cause of action for purposes of res judicata if they arise from a single group of operative facts, regardless of whether they assert different theories of relief.” River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 703 N.E.2d 883, 893 (Ill. 1998). The test is “pragmatic” as it focuses on the facts underlying the different claims while disregarding “the number of substantive theories, the variant forms of relief flowing from those theories, and the variations in evidence needed to support the theories.” Garcia v. Vill. of Mount Prospect, 360 F.3d 630, 637 (7th Cir. 2004). In other words, Illinois courts do not “require the same evidence or an identical theory of relief” in order for the separate claims to be considered the same cause of action. Cooney v. Rossiter, 986 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ill. 2012).
The issue here is whether Gonzalez's state and federal claims arise from the same group of operative facts as his Circuit Court case. In his petition before the Circuit Court, Gonzalez challenged the validity of the Police Board decision, alleging that it was against the manifest weight of the evidence, violated his due process rights, and was otherwise capricious and unreasonable. In the Circuit Court proceeding, Gonzalez solely sought review and reversal of the Police Board's suspension decision. Here, in contrast, Gonzalez brings federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically alleging that the suspension decision violated his constitutional due process rights and accusing Defendants of conspiracy. Those are the only federal claims Gonzalez asserts in his amended complaint-Gonzalez's remaining claims arise under state law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983