Court Opinion

ID: 9736216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:47:23.682326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:05.079371
License: Public Domain

Mme JUSTICE SPOMER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: The majority dissolved the preliminary injunction because it lacked specificity in its terms, and therefore found it unnecessary to reach the constitutional question of whether defendant’s conduct was within the protection of the First Amendment and not subject to injunctive control. I concur that the portion of the order which enjoined defendant from “annoying or harrassing [sic] the plaintiff in any manner as described in plaintiff’s complaint” must be stricken, since under both case law and the Injunction Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 69, par. 3—1) the language is imprecise and makes prohibited reference to the complaint in stating the acts restrained. However, I think the balance of the order (“interfering in any way with plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his property rights and his business operations; defendant is specifically enjoined from making spurious complaints to governmental agencies concerning plaintiff’s business activities”) is sufficiently precise to adequately inform defendant what conduct is forbidden. Illinois Power Co. v. Latham (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 156, 164, 303 N.E.2d 448, 455, where defendant was enjoined from “interfering with or hindering plaintiff’s employees in the performance of their duties and injuring or attempting to injure or destroy plaintiff’s property.” A spurious complaint, to answer defendant’s query, is a false complaint, or one of a deceitful nature or quality. (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary.) The complaint alleged and the evidence showed that defendant made numerous such complaints to various agencies; and to require the injunction order to identify the name of each agency, or fail for lack of specificity as defendant urges, would place a monumental and unnecessary burden on plaintiff, since literally hundreds of such groups exist for regulation of small businesses, including plaintiff’s. Although not deciding the constitutional issue, the majority discussed at some length the relative rights of the parties: plaintiff’s right to be free from improper interference with their right to conduct a lawful business versus defendant’s First Amendment guarantee of free speech and right to petition for redress of grievances. It concluded, “[A] citizen’s right to communicate and to address his government in matters which he deems to be important cannot be lightly subject to restraint.” Under my view of this case, it becomes necessary to discuss the conditions under which restraint should be applied. The right of a citizen to inform his representatives in government of his desires regarding passage and enforcement of laws is a preferred right entitled to rigorous judicial protection (United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Association (1967), 389 U.S. 217, 19 L. Ed. 2d 426, 88 S. Ct. 353), and it does not legally depend upon his intent in doing so. (Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. (1961), 365 U.S. 127, 139, 5 L. Ed. 2d 464, 81 S. Ct. 523.) This right, however, is not inherently absolute, but must be considered in the light of the rights of others. Arlington Heights National Bank v. Arlington Heights Federal Savings & Loan Association (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 546, 550, 229 N.E.2d 514; United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell (1947), 330 U.S. 75, 91 L. Ed. 754, 67 S. Ct. 556; Times Film Corp. v. Chicago (1961), 365 U.S. 43, 5 L. Ed. 2d 403, 81 S. Ct. 391; Baines v. City of Damville (4th Cir. 1964), 337 F.2d 579. The parties disagree as to what test should be applied in determining the type of conduct that is outside the ambit of the privilege, and consequently, actionable in a civil suit. The Illinois Supreme Court has said that to state a cause of action, plaintiff must show that defendant's wrongful conduct was motivated by actual malice. (Arlington, 37 Ill. 2d 546, 551; Lulay v. Peoria Journal-Star, Inc. (1966), 34 Ill. 2d 112, 214 N.E.2d 746.) In Noerr a “sham” test was defined, limiting the privilege only where the defendant's acts were a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than his attempt to interfere directly with plaintiff's business relationships. (365 U.S. 127, 144, 5 L. Ed. 2d 464, 475, 81 S. Ct. 523, 533.) I find defendant’s position clearly in error when he states that “no matter what the object of the one petitioning the government, holds Noerr, his right to so act is protected.” In Noerr — described by the United States Supreme Court as a “no-holds-barred fight” between the trucking industry and its competitor, the railroads, both seeking control of a profitable source of income — the court clearly recognized the situation in which the right to petition the government is limited: “There may be situations in which a publicity campaign, ostensibly directed toward influencing governmental action, is a mere sham to cover what is actually nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor and the application of the Sherman Act would be justified. But this certainly is not the case here. No one denies that the railroads were making a genuine effort to influence legislation and law enforcement practices. Indeed, if the version of the facts set forth in the truckers' complaint is fully credited, as it was by the courts below, that effort was not only genuine but also highly successful. Under these circumstances, we conclude that no attempt to interfere with business relationships in a manner proscribed by the Sherman Act is involved in this case.” Noerr, 365 U.S. 127, 144, 5 L. Ed. 2d 464, 475, 81 S. Ct. 523, 533. In Sierra Club v. Butz (N.D. Cal. 1972), 349 F. Supp. 934, 937, this test was again recognized: “Liability [for invasion of privacy and defamation] can be imposed only when what appears to be an attempt to discuss matters of public interest is a ‘sham’ in that the speaker knows his statements are false or speaks with reckless disregard of whether they are true or false. Importantly, the Court recently made it absolutely clear that absent this ‘sham’ use common law ‘malice’ is irrelevant to a person’s right to speak freely without fear of liability. [Citation.]” Regardless of the test used, ill will alone cannot be equated to actual malice. As the court in Arlington stated: “ ° ° ° there must be a desire to harm, which is independent of and unrelated to a desire to protect the acting party’s rights and which is not reasonably related to the defense of a recognized property or social interest.” Arlington, 37 Ill. 2d 546, 551. The complaint in the case at bar alleged that defendant’s acts were done maliciously, were untrue, and were known to be untrue. Plaintiff’s testimony supported the allegations. When plaintiff first commenced business, he called upon all his neighbors, including defendant, and introduced himself. He told defendant that he was informed that problems had arisen between defendant and the previous owner, and he wanted to work out any problems that might arise between them. Defendant told him that the only way he could get rid of the problem was to buy defendant’s property at an escalated price, and failing this, plaintiff would continue to have trouble. Thereafter, plaintiff testified that the Department of Transportation “has literally lived with me since October; the man is here almost daily because he gets another phone call from defendant.” Defendant made complaints that the buses were defective and improperly inspected, although plaintiff did not inspect his own buses, and in fact, proper inspections had been made. As a result of defendant’s complaints, the agency involved caused a reinspection of plaintiff’s fleet of 107 buses, which took place over more than a month and necessitated the loss of 1,000 man-hours of his employees’ time, since an employee had to accompany the inspector at all times. Three State agents were present at plaintiff’s business for three weeks on a daily basis. No citations were issued as a result of defendant’s complaints. Defendant complained to the Caseyville Police that plaintiff was operating buses without safety stickers, and 20 tickets were issued, requiring plaintiff’s appearance at the police station to exhibit proof of purchase of the wheel stickers. This action consumed approximately two days of plaintiff’s time, and the charges were dismissed. Defendant complained to the United States Department of Transportation concerning the condition of the buses, and as a result three of its employees made an inspection of the buses. Plaintiff had all current safety stickers on the buses, and no citations were issued. Defendant complained to the Environmental Protection Agency about noise pollution. Plaintiff then contacted the other residents of the area to ascertain whether such pollution existed, and he found no verification of defendant’s complaint. In fact, these residents wrote letters and a petition to the EPA asserting that no noise pollution existed in the area. Plaintiff testified that the business is located in a commercial, not a residential, area. As a result of this complaint, and several phone calls from defendant, the agency sent an inspector to plaintiff’s business, and he took the buses off the job for tests. No citations had been issued as of the date of the hearing. As a result of defendant’s complaint to the Secretary of State, five investigations were made. Of these, only one was found valid, i.e., that in moving from Lebanon to Caseyville plaintiff had failed to change the address at which his records were kept. The change was made, and no citations were issued. Defendant also complained that plaintiff was improperly using dealer plates. This, too, was dismissed, although it occasioned plaintiff two weeks’ loss of time, including a trip to Springfield. On another occasion, an injured dog crawled up on plaintiff’s property and died under plaintiff’s window. Plaintiff asked an employee to move the dog because of the foul smell and unsanitary condition. When he attempted to do so, defendant threatened the employee with a gun, claiming he was trespassing on defendant’s property. Other evidence disclosed defendant’s use of binoculars to observe both plaintiff’s place of business and his children. Defendant claimed plaintiff’s sons called him names, and had them arrested. These charges were also dismissed. The court found that defendant’s acts grossly exceeded civic responsibility and that his communications, which could not be construed as dissemination for public enlightenment, were made for the purpose of disrupting plaintiffs’ business by direct and indirect coercion. This is not a case involving two competitors, as in Noerr and Arlington, but one where defendant’s purpose was unlawful — to force plaintiffs to purchase his property at an escalated price. As stated in Carpenters’ Union v. Citizens Committee (1928), 333 Ill. 225, 246: “No persons, individually or by combination, have the right to directly or indirectly interfere with or disturb another in his lawful business or occupation or for the sake of compelling him to do some act which in his own judgment his own interest does not require. Losses willfully caused by another from motives of malice to one who seeks to exercise and enjoy the fruits and advantages of his own enterprise, industry, skill or credit will sustain an action. It is unlawful and actionable for one man from unlawful motives to interfere with another’s trade by fraud or misrepresentation, physical or moral intimidation or persuasion, with intent to inflict an injury which causes loss. Though the complainants had the right to be free from wanton disturbance and annoyance in seeking to enjoy the fruits and advantages of their labor, industry, and skill, they have no right to be protected against competition. While a person must submit to competition, he has the right to be protected from malicious interference with his business.” The court in Carpenters’ Union noted that the parties were not competitors in any sense, thus no justification for the defendant’s acts could be founded on that rationale. Likewise, plaintiffs and defendant are not competitors in the case at bar. Defendant argues that the only proper test is the “sham” test as stated in Sierra. I think the evidence in the record sufficiently met this test and proved that defendant was not seeking merely to influence governmental action, but was attempting to coerce plaintiffs by defaming and destroying their business, knowing the accusations were false or making them with a reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. Defendant’s activities went far beyond a desire to obtain for himself a wholesome environment and a safe transportation system, and in my opinion were properly enjoined to the extent stated herein. To that extent I would affirm the trial court.