Opinion ID: 182211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claims Concerning Section 7-24-225 of the Municipal Code of Chicago

Text: Finally, Ray's complaint asserts a supplemental state claim, pursuant to Illinois' Administrative Review Act, 735 ILCS 5/301 et seq. (2010), seeking review of the DOAH's finding that Ray was liable under Section 7-24-225 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. Ray has argued that her claim also includes a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the ordinance. On appeal, Ray raises only one argument concerning the district court's ruling. She contends that we should reverse the district court's ruling because the court inappropriately considered materials outside of the complainta transcript of the DOAH hearingwhen deciding whether to dismiss her claims. Ray's argument suffers from several problems. First, it is well established that district courts may take judicial notice of certain documentsincluding records of administrative actionswhen deciding motions to dismiss. See, e.g., Fornalik v. Perryman, 223 F.3d 523, 529 (7th Cir. 2000); Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1080 (7th Cir.1997). Hence, even if the district court had relied on the hearing transcript when deciding whether it should dismiss Ray's claim, it is not apparent that its actions would have constituted error. Second, a review of the district court's opinion establishes that its decision was not based on the transcript, but on Ray's failure to plead facts to support her allegation[s] that the challenged ordinance is unconstitutional. . . [and that] the finding of the Dept. of Administrative Hearings is arbitrary, unreasonable, and against the manifest weight. Because the district court's decision to dismiss Ray's claim was based on deficiencies that it found in her complaint and her only argument on appeal focuses exclusively on issues related to the transcript, she has failed to identify grounds for reversal. Finally, our own independent assessment of the sufficiency of Ray's complaint leads us to the same conclusion as the district court. The complaint simply does not contain allegations of fact sufficient to support Ray's claims that DOAH's findings were arbitrary or that the ordinance is unconstitutional.