Court Opinion

ID: 9389613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 21:03:41.244638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.827439
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 230199-U

                                                                               SECOND DIVISION
                                                                               April 25, 2023

                                           No. 1-23-0199

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________

                                    IN THE
                        APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                           FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

VILLAGE OF RIVERDALE, a Municipal Corporation,  )     Appeal from the
                                                )     Circuit Court of
            Plaintiff-Appellee,                 )     Cook County
                                                )
      v.                                        )     Nos. 20 M6 2446
                                                )             20 M6 2449
AMERICAN TRANSLOADING SERVICES, MAMA’S )                      20 M6 8802
COIN LAUNDRY, INC., and CHICAGO SALT            )
COMPANY,                                        )     Honorable
                                                )     Michael B. Barrett,
            Defendants-Appellants.              )     Judge Presiding
_____________________________________________________________________________

       JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court.
       Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Cobbs concurred in the judgement.

                                              ORDER

¶1     Held: Vacated. Preliminary injunction was inappropriate, as circuit court failed to balance
       equities, and granting relief would result in permanent closure of defendants’ businesses.

¶2     Plaintiff, the village of Riverdale, filed suit in three separate cases (later consolidated),

each of which sought to prevent one of three different defendant companies from operating in the

village without a license. Defendants responded with counterclaims that, among other things,

challenged the constitutionality of a new ordinance on which the village relied to deny their

applications for license renewal. At the village’s request, the circuit court issued a preliminary

injunction preventing defendants from operating their businesses. Defendants appeal that
No. 1-23-0199

injunction, arguing that the circuit court did not preserve the status quo and failed to properly

balance the equities before issuing the injunction. We agree and vacate the preliminary

injunction.

¶3     The facts of these cases are straightforward. The village of Riverdale (the Village)

recently amended its municipal code, allowing the Village to deny an application for a business

license if the applicant had any outstanding village fines, taxes, or property taxes. See Riverdale

Municipal Code § 5.02.180. Shortly thereafter, the Village enacted an exemption to this

ordinance if the delinquent applicant had entered into a payment plan of two years or less and

paid 10 percent of the delinquency directly to the Village. Id. §5.02.185 (repealed by Ordinance

2021-35).

¶4     In mid-2019, the Village refused to renew each of the three defendants’ business licenses

for the sole reason that defendants were past due on real estate taxes for their property in the

village and had not complied with the payment-plan exemption. But defendants continued to

operate their businesses.

¶5     Section 5.02.210 of the Riverdale Municipal Code authorizes the Village, among other

remedies, to seek injunctive relief to stop or abate a violation of many provisions, including the

licensure requirements set forth above. See id. § 5.02.210(c). So in early 2020, the Village filed

three separate actions for injunctive relief to force the three defendant businesses to cease

operations without a license.

¶6     Each defendant filed an identical counterclaim, seeking a declaration that sections

5.02.180 and 5.02.185 were unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. They brought other claims

under two separate Illinois statutes—the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act

and the Personal Information Privacy Act (Counts 4 and 5 of the counterclaims).

                                                -2-
No. 1-23-0199

¶7     The circuit court consolidated these three identical cases. In December 2021, the court

ruled on the question of constitutionality raised by the counterclaims. The court found that the

exemption the Village had adopted (section 5.02.185), which allowed for a license if the

delinquent applicant had made a down payment directly to the Village and entered into a

payment plan with the county, was an unconstitutional encroachment on the authority of Cook

County to collect property taxes.

¶8     But the court determined that the rule itself, denying a license based on the applicant’s

tax delinquency (section 5.02.180), was a valid exercise of the Village’s home-rule authority.

Because that section was constitutional, the court reasoned, defendants’ request for injunctive

relief against the operation of that ordinance failed. The court “reserve[d] its ruling” on the

counterclaims related to the Illinois statutes on consumer fraud and information privacy.

¶9     With that ruling upholding the validity of section 5.02.180, the Village moved for a

preliminary injunction against each defendant to cease doing business without a license.

¶ 10   Defendants raised several arguments in response. From what we can discern, none of the

defendant companies denied the underlying fact—they were delinquent on their property taxes.

They did, however, raise a number of procedural arguments and claimed that a preliminary

injunction was premature, as they were seeking to challenge their delinquencies through

administrative remedies available. Notably, during the evidentiary hearing, each of the defendant

companies put forth sworn and uncontested evidence that they would go out of business if forced

to cease operations—their clients would find other vendors to replace them if defendants

suffered even a short delay in the operation of their businesses.

¶ 11   In late January 2023, in a written order, the court granted the Village’s motion for

preliminary injunction, finding that the Village had met each of the four requirements for

                                                -3-
No. 1-23-0199

injunctive relief. The court found that the Village had a “clearly ascertained right in need of

protection,” namely the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. Next, the Village would

suffer irreparable harm without a preliminary injunction, in that “the Village will have no

authority to prevent the business from operating.” The court found that the Village had no

adequate remedy at law and “[s]ince there was no substantive dispute to the allegations offered

by the Village, there is a strong likelihood for success on the merits.”

¶ 12   Defendants appealed and moved for a stay of the circuit court’s preliminary injunction. A

different panel of this court granted that stay pending the outcome of this appeal. So the

preliminary injunction has not taken effect.

¶ 13   Preliminary injunctions are “ ‘an extraordinary remedy, and courts do not favor their

issuance.’ ” Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Raoul, 2019 IL App (4th) 190334, ¶ 36 (quoting Ford Motor

Credit Co. v. Cornfield, 395 Ill. App. 3d 896, 903 (2009)). A preliminary injunction does not

determine controverted rights or decide the merits of a case but, rather, preserves the rights of the

parties or the state of affairs until the case can be decided on the merits. Kalbfleisch ex rel.

Kalbfleisch v. Columbia Community Unit School No. 4, 396 Ill. App. 3d 1105, 1112 (2009).

Generally, this means that a preliminary injunction should “preserve the status quo of the parties

rather than alter it.” Id. at 1117. Like any other equitable remedy, preliminary injunctive relief is

not entirely controlled by technical legal rules; it is subject to the discretion and conscience of

the circuit court, taking into account the equities and potential hardships under the specific facts

of each case. Id. at 1109.

¶ 14   We review the grant of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion. World

Painting Co., LLC v. Costigan, 2012 IL App (4th) 110869, ¶ 12. We will find error only if the

ruling is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no reasonable person would adopt the trial court’s

                                                 -4-
No. 1-23-0199

view. Id. The failure to apply the proper test or consider the appropriate criteria may itself be an

abuse of discretion. Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd., 223 Ill. 2d 85, 99 (2006);

Travelport, LP v. American Airlines, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 111761, ¶ 49.

¶ 15    Though injunctions are not completely controlled by technical rules, there are some well-

established prerequisites. To obtain an injunction of any kind, preliminary or permanent, the

movant must establish (1) a clear right in need of protection, (2) the lack of an adequate remedy

at law, and (3) irreparable harm if the injunction does not issue. County of Kendall v.

Rosenwinkel, 353 Ill. App. 3d 529, 538 (2004). Of course, there is a fourth requirement—the

movant obviously must also prevail on the underlying merits of its case. But that fourth

requirement varies depending on the nature of the injunction—for a permanent injunction, the

movant must conclusively prevail; for a preliminary injunction, the movant must show a

likelihood of success on the merits. See id.

¶ 16    But when, as here, a statute or ordinance gives the government the right to enforce its

provisions through injunctive relief, these first three traditional prerequisites for injunctive relief

need not be satisfied. See People ex rel. Sherman v. Cryns, 203 Ill. 2d 264, 277 (2003). We do

not require the government to prove irreparable harm or the absence of a legal remedy because

we presume harm from the violation of the statute or ordinance. See id.; Sadat v. American

Motors Corp., 104 Ill. 2d 105, 113 (1984). And the statute or ordinance, itself, provides the

government with the right in need of protection.

¶ 17    In this unique context of a governmental-enforcement injunction, the issues thus collapse

to simply a question on the merits: did the government prove a violation of the statute or

ordinance (or, in the context of a preliminary injunction, a likely violation)? See Cryns, 203 Ill.

2d at 277. In one recent unpublished order cited by defendants for persuasive purposes, which

                                                 -5-
No. 1-23-0199

we find quite persuasive, we referred to this as a “streamlined test” for injunctive relief. County

of McHenry v. Waters, 2021 IL App (2d) 210027-U, ¶ 45 (unpublished order under Supreme

Court Rule 23).

¶ 18   Here, as noted at the outset, section 5.02.210 of the Riverdale Municipal Code authorizes

the Village to seek injunctive relief to order an unlicensed business to cease operations. See

Riverdale Municipal Code § 5.02.210(c). So the preliminary injunctive relief sought here would

qualify under the more streamlined version for injunctive relief; the Village need not establish

the traditional first three prerequisites. And as noted above, the circuit court found that the

Village had a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of its claim that the ordinance was violated.

¶ 19   And that, says the Village, is the end of the discussion. The Village proved a likely

violation of its licensure ordinance, so a preliminary injunction was appropriate, full stop. There

is no need to continue the analysis beyond this single determination, no need to discuss the

equities of the case, to balance the hardships, as we might in a traditional motion for preliminary

injunction. See Kalbfleisch, 396 Ill. App. 3d at 1109.

¶ 20   For a permanent injunction conclusively resolving the matter, the Village might have a

stronger argument; we understand why a court might think that a balancing of equities is

unnecessary when the injunction is brought by the government based on an ordinance violation.

See City of Rock Falls v. Aims Industrial Services, LLC, 2022 IL App (4th) 220208-U, ¶ 50

(unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23), appeal allowed, 201 N.E.3d 573 (Ill. 2023).

Other courts have reasoned, to the contrary, that a court should balance the equities even when

the government is seeking a permanent injunction to enforce an ordinance or statute. See, e.g.,

Rosenwinkel, 353 Ill. App. 3d at 539 (finding it necessary to consider balance of equities “even

where the three traditional elements necessary to secure a permanent injunction are supplanted

                                                 -6-
No. 1-23-0199

by a statute expressly authorizing the State or governmental agency to seek injunctive relief”);

Midland Enterprises v. City of Elmhurst, 226 Ill. App. 3d 494, 505 (1993) (balancing equities

after determining that traditional elements of equitable relief need not be shown).

¶ 21   But regardless on which side we might fall on this question in the context of a permanent

injunction, we have little trouble concluding that, before issuing a preliminary injunction, the

court must consider the equities and hardships in the particular case. A permanent injunction

involves a conclusive determination on the merits—a final judgment. Skolnick v. Altheimer &

Gray, 191 Ill. 2d 214, 222 (2000). A preliminary injunction obviously does not. Here, for

example, we are not at the end of this controversy. This matter remains ongoing in the circuit

court. The circuit court has found it “likel[y]” that the government has proven its case but has not

conclusively ruled, to say nothing of other counterclaims on which the circuit court has thus far

reserved ruling.

¶ 22   The term itself says it all—it is preliminary action, issued before the case is completed,

before the merits have been conclusively resolved. It should not be controversial to say that,

when a court issues injunctive relief at the outset or in the middle of a case, the court must be

cognizant of the effects of that preliminary action. Is the court preserving or upsetting the status

quo? Will the preliminary relief have such a detrimental impact on one of the parties as to

effectively decide the case before it is conclusively resolved? Would a preliminary injunction

prevent harm or cause harm? Is the court putting a pause on certain activity until the controversy

can be decided, or is the court allowing the rights or property at issue to be dissipated or

destroyed before the case is completed, thus rendering the final disposition meaningless?

¶ 23   While certain prerequisites for a preliminary injunction fall by the wayside when a

municipality is using injunctive relief to enforce an ordinance, we cannot accept that, mid-case,

                                                -7-
No. 1-23-0199

the court should turn a blind eye to whether its preliminary relief will do irreparable damage to

one of the parties or upend the state of affairs in such a way as to render the final decision moot

or irrelevant. We cannot imagine that, based solely on a finding that the government is likely to

succeed in proving an ordinance violation, the court is foreclosed from any consideration of the

traditional equities that guide the court—that the court must issue a preliminary injunction, even

if doing so will destroy the fruits of the dispute. We thus agree with the recent decision in

Waters, 2021 IL App (2d) 210027-U, ¶ 45, that “[u]nder either the traditional, four element test

or the more streamlined test available to a government entity, the trial court must also balance

the equities to determine the relative inconvenience to the parties.”

¶ 24   We are not persuaded otherwise by a case cited by the Village in which it was involved

over twenty years ago, Village of Riverdale v. Allied Waste Transportation, Inc., 334 Ill. App. 3d

224 (2002). That case likewise involved the Village’s attempt to order a business to cease

operations by way of preliminary injunction. Id. at 226. But the only question there was whether

the Village was required to satisfy the traditional common-law prerequisite of showing that it

lacked an adequate remedy at law. Id. The answer to that question should be obvious given our

discussion above—the Village was not required to do so, as it was enforcing an ordinance that

provided for injunctive relief to secure its enforcement. Id. at 232. The court was not confronted

with the argument that the circuit court should have balanced the equities before issuing

preliminary injunctive relief, and this court had no occasion to comment on that question.

¶ 25   For the reasons given above, the circuit court should have balanced the equities and

relative hardships to the parties before issuing the preliminary injunction. In other words, the

court should have considered whether the Village demonstrated that it would suffer more harm

without a preliminary injunction than defendants would suffer if the injunction were granted. See

                                                -8-
No. 1-23-0199

Alms v. Peoria County Election Commission, 2022 IL App (4th) 220976, ¶ 26. The failure to

undertake this analysis was error. Travelport, LP, 2011 IL App (1st) 111761, ¶ 49; see Paul, 223

Ill. 2d at 99. And the error was prejudicial in this case; in our view, a balancing of the equities in

this case strongly favored denying, not granting, preliminary injunctive relief.

¶ 26   At the hearing on the preliminary injunction, defendants were clear, via unrebutted sworn

testimony, that even a preliminary injunction would cause their businesses to permanently close,

their clients turning elsewhere for their business. The Village cites its understandable interest in

not allowing unlicensed businesses to operate within its community, including the fact that the

Village should not be required to provide government services to a company that does not

provide its share of revenue to a municipality that is starving for tax dollars.

¶ 27   The Village’s interest is no doubt legitimate, but it does not overcome the permanent

shuttering of a business before that business has had the opportunity to challenge the very

governmental action causing it to close—here, the adoption of an ordinance that disqualifies it

from licensure. Monetary damages to compensate for commercial injury are one thing, but the

loss of a business entirely is an irreparable and incalculable loss. See Bio-Medical Laboratories

v. Trainor, 68 Ill. 2d 540, 549 (1977) (affirming grant of preliminary injunction to allow

company to do business in advance of final judgment; prohibiting company from operating

would deprive company of nearly all its revenue and close its business, thus “caus[ing] damages

of an uncertain magnitude”); CC Disposal, Inc. v. Veolia ES Valley View Landfill, Inc., 406 Ill.

App. 3d 783, 789 (2010) (“It is impossible to put a dollar value on” loss of one’s business).

¶ 28   Should defendants ultimately prevail, it would be a hollow victory at best, the fruits of

any such victory having long been spoiled; defendants would have lost the case, for all practical

                                                 -9-
No. 1-23-0199

purposes, before a final judgment. Defendants’ interest thus heavily favors the denial of a

preliminary injunction forcing them to cease operation.

¶ 29   We would factor in, as well, that as best we can tell, the work in the circuit court seems to

be nearing completion. The circuit court has resolved the constitutional question (albeit not in a

final and appealable judgment). Other counterclaims remain, but we see no reason why those

claims could not be resolved in an expedited fashion. So even if the Village is forced to endure

some additional time with defendants operating without a license, we would hope and expect that

this amount of time could be kept to a minimum. (And as defendants note, the Village remains

free to cite and fine defendants for operating their businesses without a license, though we

understand that does not wholly address the Village’s concerns.)

¶ 30   At this preliminary stage, we express no conclusive opinion on the trial court’s

adjudication of the constitutionality of section 5.02.180. We would agree that, on preliminary

review, it appears that the Village has a likelihood of success on the merits of its case; nothing

we have written above should suggest otherwise. But even when a party is likely to succeed, the

court must be cognizant of the harm that a preliminary injunction could inflict on the parties. See

Guns Save Life, 2019 IL App (4th) 190334, ¶ 67. Here, given the incalculable and irreversible

injury to defendants that would result, it was error to issue the preliminary injunction.

¶ 31   The judgment of the circuit court is vacated.

¶ 32   Vacated.

                                               - 10 -