Court Opinion

ID: 9715564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:08:53.28895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:35.885772
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: I disagree with the majority’s decision to remand several counts to the trial court. I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the entire complaint. First, the Attorney General does not have standing to bring this lawsuit. It is not within his common law or statutory powers to bring suit on behalf of a municipal corporation that could do so on its own. (People ex rel. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. Barrett (1943), 382 Ill. 321, 332-45.) The majority distinguishes Barrett on the ground that here the public corporation that the Attorney General seeks to represent did not object. This reading of Barrett is too narrow. The appropriate rule of law is that a public corporation that has the power to hire its own attorneys and bring its own suits must affirmatively ask the Attorney General to intervene. This did not occur here. Next, the Consumer Fraud Act (the Act) does not apply to the Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority (the Authority). This court’s opinion in Board of Education v. A, C & S, Inc. (1989), 131 Ill. 2d 428, 467-69, is controlling on this point. The Authority, like the school districts in A, C & S, is a body politic and not a person who may bring suit under the Act. Additionally, there is no basis for a lawsuit since there are no money damages. The majority incorrectly concludes that the Attorney General has stated an injury for which we may grant relief. Finally, the majority errs by not addressing the constitutionality argument. This issue is not beyond the scope of a section 2 — 615 motion. Further, the facts of this case are indistinguishable from the facts in City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. (1989), 489 U.S. 469, 102 L. Ed. 2d 854, 109 S. Ct. 706, and therefore the Minority and Women Business Enterprise set-asides violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and article I, section 18, of the Illinois Constitution. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.