Court Opinion

ID: 9913155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 22:02:35.596919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:31.011001
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 220996-U
                                                                                  FIRST DISTRICT,
                                                                                  FIRST DIVISION
                                                                                  December 26, 2023

                                               No. 1-22-0996

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

                                         IN THE
                             APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
     _____________________________________________________________________________

      MICHAEL TOCK, HECTOR HOYOS and                            )
      KEITH WETTERQUIST, individually, and                      )
                                                                         Appeal from the
      on behalf of all others similarly situated,               )
                                                                         Circuit Court of
                                                                )
                                                                         Cook County, Illinois.
                                     Plaintiffs-Appellants,     )
      v.                                                        )
                                                                         No. 2021 CH 05781
                                                                )
      VILLAGE OF STONE PARK, an Illinois                        )
                                                                         Honorable
      Municipal Corporation,                                    )
                                                                         Neil H. Cohen,
                                                                )
                                                                         Judge Presiding.
                                     Defendant-Appellee.        )

     _____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE COGHLAN delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Lavin and Pucinski concurred in the judgment.

                                                  ORDER

¶1          Held: Dismissal of plaintiffs’ first amended class action complaint pursuant to section 2-
                  619 of the Code of Civil Procedure is affirmed where one plaintiff lacked standing
                  to sue and the remaining plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

¶2          In their first amended class action complaint against defendant Village of Stone Park

     (Village), plaintiffs Michael Tock, Hector Hoyos, and Keith Wetterquist (plaintiffs),

     individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, sought declaratory and injunctive relief
     No. 1-22-0996

     regarding the issuance of red light camera tickets to motorists at the intersection of Mannheim

     Road and Lake Street (intersection). 1

¶3          Plaintiffs alleged that the Village issued red light camera tickets at the intersection in

     violation of section 11-208.6(c-5) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Vehicle Code) (625 ILCS 5/11-

     208.6(c-5) (West 2020)), which prohibits the issuance of red light camera tickets to motorists

     who come to a complete stop after the stop line, but before entering the intersection, as long as

     no pedestrians or bicyclists are present. Plaintiffs asserted the Village changed the angle of the

     red light camera, making it impossible to determine whether motorists had committed a red light

     violation.

¶4          The circuit court granted the Village’s motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the

     Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619) (West 2020)), finding that Tock lacked standing

     because his ticket was dismissed, and Hoyos and Wetterquist failed to exhaust their

     administrative remedies. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶5                                             BACKGROUND

¶6          Section 11-208.6 of the Vehicle Code authorizes and regulates the use of “automatic

     traffic law enforcement systems” (red light cameras). See 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6 (West 2020). An

     “automated traffic law enforcement system” is a system that “produces a recorded image of a

     motor vehicle’s violation of a provision of [the Vehicle Code] *** and is designed to obtain a

     clear recorded image of the vehicle and the vehicle’s license plate.” 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6(a).

            1
              On November 16, 2021, Tock filed the original class action complaint in this case. On February
     14, 2022, Tock was granted leave to file the first amended class action complaint, adding Hoyos and
     Wetterquist as plaintiffs.
                                                      -2-
     No. 1-22-0996

¶7          Section 11-208.6(c-5) of the Vehicle Code prohibits the issuance of violations “in

     instances where the motor vehicle comes to a complete stop and does not enter the intersection,

     *** unless one or more pedestrians or bicyclists are present, even if the motor vehicle stops at a

     point past a stop line or crosswalk where a driver is required to stop ***.” 625 ILCS 5/11-

     208.6(c-5). A written notice of violation must be delivered to the registered owner of the vehicle

     and “shall” include, in part, the vehicle’s registration number, the violation charged, the date,

     time, and location of the violation, a copy of the recorded images, the civil penalty imposed, and

     a website where the recorded images may be viewed. 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6(d)(2)-(6), (11). The

     registered owner may pay the fine or “challeng[e] the charge in court, by mail, or by

     administrative hearing.” 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6(d)(10).

¶8          Pursuant to section 11-208.3 of the Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-208.3(a) (West 2020)),

     the Village adopted its own red light camera ordinance. See Code of Stone Park §70.03 (passed

     Jan. 1, 2008) (Village Code). The Village Code provides that “[t]he recorded images produced

     by the automated traffic law enforcement system, *** shall capture and display images of the

     vehicle allegedly violating traffic-control signals ***.” Id. §70.03(A). A notice of violation

     delivered to the registered owner of the vehicle “establish[es] prima facie evidence of a violation

     ***.” Id. §70.03(D). The registered owner may pay the fine or challenge the charge in an

     administrative hearing. Id. §70.03(D)(10). The Village Code establishes a Code Hearing Unit

     comprised of a hearing officer as the “administrative adjudication system for all violations of the

     village code.” Id. §70.03(G). Final determinations of red light violations are subject to review

     under Illinois Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-102) (West 2020)). See 625 ILCS

     5/11-208.3(d); Code of Stone Park §70.03(R).

                                                     -3-
       No. 1-22-0996

¶9             On July 2, 2021, while driving southbound on Mannheim Road toward Lake Street, Tock

       “came to a complete stop before the Intersection,” but “past the white stop line” before making a

       right-hand turn onto Lake Street. No pedestrians or bicyclists were present. Tock received a

       notice of red light violation, which he challenged at an in-person hearing. Although Tock was

       found not guilty by the hearing officer, he alleges he incurred economic harm due to the

       “personal time and resources” expended attending the hearing.

¶ 10           Hoyos and his wife, Sherry Hoyos, 2 received a notice of red light violation after Sherry

       made a right-hand turn at the same intersection on October 15, 2021. Sherry alleges she came to

       a “complete stop before the Intersection, but after crossing the white stop line” and no

       pedestrians or bicyclists were present. Hoyos and Sherry contested the violation at an at an in-

       person hearing, arguing that “it’s not enough camera to show the whole story [(i.e., that Sherry

       came to a complete stop)], which is not fair to the driver.” The hearing officer held that there was

       no evidence on the camera that Sherry stopped, adding, “[w]hen you’re getting beyond the

       camera, you’re basically in the intersection ***.” Hoyos was found liable and advised that he

       could “appeal that to the circuit court.” He paid the $100 fine under “duress” and “protest,” but

       did not file an administrative review action.

¶ 11           Wetterquist received a notice of red light violation for making a right-hand turn at the

       same intersection on December 28, 2021. Like the other plaintiffs, he claims he came “to a

       complete stop before the Intersection, but after crossing the white stop line,” and no pedestrians

       or bicyclists were present. Wetterquist did not contest the violation, but paid the $100 fine under

       “duress” and “protest.”

               2
                 Both Sherry and Hector Hoyos are registered owners of the vehicle. To avoid confusion, we will
       refer to Sherry by her first name.
                                                        -4-
       No. 1-22-0996

¶ 12          Plaintiffs’ first amended class action complaint against the Village alleged that

       “[s]ometime between August 10, 2019 and July 2, 2021, [the Village] changed the positioning,

       set-up and/or angle of the Red-Light Cameras at the Intersection,” so it “no longer showed the

       entire area between the stop line and the Intersection for southbound vehicles on Mannheim

       Road turning right onto Lake Street.” Thereafter, it was “impossible to independently determine”

       from the images and videos whether motorists had come to a complete stop before entering the

       intersection. Due to the Village’s “practice” of issuing “Red-Light Camera tickets when a vehicle

       stops past the stop line or crosswalk, even though the motor vehicle comes to a complete stop

       before entering the intersection,” “hundreds” of motorists are being wrongfully ticketed.

¶ 13          Count I alleged a violation of procedural due process under the Illinois Constitution.

       According to plaintiffs, the Village is unable to establish “a prima facie case of a Red-Light

       Camera violation” based on its failure to install a camera that shows the entire area at issue. As a

       result, plaintiffs are being denied “a fair and meaningful hearing in violation of due process.”

       Counts II and III raised implied causes of actions for violations of sections 11-208.3 and 11-

       208.6 of the Vehicle Code and section 70.03 of the Village Code. Count IV alleged a claim for

       unjust enrichment seeking repayment of the fines paid by motorists found liable.

¶ 14          In relief, plaintiffs sought declarations that: the tickets “issued to motorists where the

       Red-Light Cameras fail to show the entire area between the stop line and the Intersection *** are

       invalid and unenforceable”; the Village “failed to establish a prima facie case as a matter of law”

       for those red light camera tickets; and the Village’s “failure to have a ticket review procedure

       that ensures fairness is unlawful and violates due process.” They also requested the issuance of

       an injunction requiring the Village to “refund all fines collected” and “enjoin[ing] [the Village]

                                                       -5-
       No. 1-22-0996

       from issuing any further Red-Light Camera tickets” without a camera that “show[s] the entire

       area between the white stop line and the Intersection.”

¶ 15          The Village moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the

       Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2020)) (allowing combined motions to

       dismiss under sections 2-615 and 2-619). Under section 2-615 (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2020)),

       the Village argued that plaintiffs’ “declaratory judgment claim improperly seeks to adjudicate

       past conduct.” The Village also argued that “there is no language establishing a private cause of

       action under [the due process clause] of the Illinois Constitution” because “plaintiffs had an

       opportunity to contest the violation before a hearing officer at an administrative hearing.” The

       Village urged the court to decline implying “new” private causes of actions under the Vehicle

       Code and the Village Code, arguing that plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim “fails as a matter of

       law” because it “cannot stand on its own.” See Martis v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 388

       Ill. App. 3d 1017, 1024 (2009) (“Unjust enrichment is not a separate cause of action that,

       standing alone, will justify an action for recovery.”).

¶ 16          Plaintiffs responded that their action for declaratory relief is “not limited to past

       conduct”; Illinois courts have “consistently upheld private causes of action for due process

       claims under the Illinois Constitution”; plaintiffs were deprived of a “meaningful” opportunity to

       contest the allegations against them, in violation of procedural due process; implying private

       causes of actions under the Vehicle Code and the Village Code is warranted and plaintiffs lack

       “an adequate remedy for violations of the statute.”

¶ 17          Under section 2-619 (735 ILCS 5/2-619), the Village asserted that plaintiffs failed to

       exhaust administrative remedies as Hoyos did not file an administrative review action in the

                                                       -6-
       No. 1-22-0996

       circuit court and Wetterquist never contested his ticket at any level. The Village further asserted

       that Tock lacked standing because his “citation was dismissed by the hearing officer.”

¶ 18           In support of its motion, the Village attached an affidavit from the Chief of Police,

       Christopher Pavini, attesting that “[t]he area outside of the righthand side of the redlight camera

       video frame is considered to be the intersection of Mannheim Road and Lake Street” and that,

       even if plaintiffs stopped their vehicles outside of the video frame, they would have stopped

       “after [their] vehicle[s] entered the intersection.” The Village also attached the transcripts from

       Tock’s and Hoyos’ administrative hearings.3

¶ 19           Regarding the Village’s arguments under section 2-619, plaintiffs argued that three

       exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine applied. Specifically, that no issues of fact are presented

       and “[n]o [agency] expertise is required to determine whether the Cameras record the area where

       the vehicle enters the Intersection ***.” Additionally, “Stone Park cannot provide an adequate

       remedy and it is patently futile for the Plaintiffs to seek relief from Stone Park” because it “is the

       entity responsible for installing and positioning the Cameras” and the hearing officer indicated

       that “it could not be determined *** whether the Hoyos’ vehicle came to a complete stop before

       the Intersection.” Plaintiffs also argued that Tock had standing since he used “his personal time

       and resources to attend the hearing and suffered economic harm as a result.”

¶ 20           On June 6, 2022, the circuit court granted the Village’s motion to dismiss pursuant to

       section 2-619. The court agreed that Tock lacked standing since he “was found not liable” and

       “has not suffered any injury that can be addressed by this court as a matter of law.” Regarding

               3
                 While the record indicates that the Village also included videos of plaintiffs’ alleged violations
       as exhibits to its motion, the Village explains in its appellate brief that it “inadvertently never transmitted”
       the videos of Sherry’s and Wetterquist’s violations to the circuit court. So, it appears that only the video
       of Tock’s alleged violation was presented to the circuit court. That video is not in the record on appeal.
                                                            -7-
       No. 1-22-0996

       Hoyos’ and Wetterquist’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the Court found that no

       exception to the exhaustion doctrine applied. The court explained that issues of fact and agency

       expertise exist regarding “(1) whether the tickets were properly issued; (2) whether the Red Light

       Camera fully captures the Intersection; and (3) whether Plaintiffs came to a complete stop at the

       Intersection.” 4

¶ 21                                                  ANALYSIS

¶ 22           Plaintiffs argue that the circuit court erred in concluding that Tock lacked standing and

       Wetterquist and Hoyos were required to exhaust administrative remedies. A section 2-619

       motion to dismiss “admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim but asserts certain defects

       or defenses outside the pleadings which defeat the claim.” Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL

       111443, ¶ 55. The court must construe the pleadings and supporting documents in the light most

       favorable to the nonmoving party and “accept as true all well-pleaded facts in plaintiff’s

       complaint and all inferences that may reasonably be drawn in plaintiff’s favor.” Id. (citing

       Czarobski v. Lata, 227 Ill. 2d 364, 369 (2008) and Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 231 Ill. 2d 474,

       488 (2008)). The reviewing court “must consider whether the existence of a genuine issue of

       material fact should have precluded the dismissal or, absent such an issue of fact, whether

       dismissal is proper as a matter of law.” Kedzie and 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge,

       156 Ill. 2d 112, 116-17 (1993). We review a section 2-619 dismissal de novo. Sandholm, 2012 IL

       111443, ¶ 55.

¶ 23                                               Tock’s Standing

               4
                This is the only exception to the exhaustion doctrine that was addressed by the circuit court.
       Because the court found dismissal proper under section 2-619, it found that it was “unnecessary to
       consider” defendant’s arguments under section 2-615.
                                                          -8-
       No. 1-22-0996

¶ 24           To have standing, a plaintiff must have “some injury in fact to a legally cognizable

       interest.” Greer v. Illinois Human Housing Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462, 492 (1988).

       The actual or threatened injury “must be: (1) distinct and palpable [citation]; (2) fairly traceable

       to the defendant’s actions [citation]; and (3) substantially likely to be prevented or redressed by

       the grant of the requested relief [citation].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 492-93.

¶ 25           Plaintiffs claim that Tock suffered an “economic injury because he had to use his

       personal time and resources to attend the hearing.” They seek declarations that the tickets issued

       by the Village are invalid, that the Village’s ticket review procedure violates due process, and an

       injunction requiring the Village to “refund all fines collected” from these tickets. Tock was

       found not liable, his ticket was dismissed, and he did not pay a fine. Therefore, it is not

       “substantially likely” that granting the requested relief would prevent the economic harm

       incurred from attending the hearing. See Blaha v. City of Chicago, 2022 IL App (1st) 210546, ¶

       57 (motorist lacked standing to challenge ordinance’s late payment penalty provision where the

       penalty was not applied to him).

¶ 26           Plaintiffs’ reliance on Potek v. City of Chicago, 2022 IL App (1st) 211286 to establish

       standing, is misplaced. There, four plaintiffs were found liable for using their cell phones while

       driving in violation of a city ordinance. Id. ¶ 1. Three of the plaintiffs paid the fine. Id. Plaintiffs

       asserted that the administrative agency lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to find them liable. Id.

       ¶ 37. On appeal, this court found that, “[r]egardless of whether plaintiffs paid the fine or

       participated in the proceedings, the result is the same: a legal finding of liability against each

       plaintiff, issued by an agency which had no authority to do so.” Id. ¶ 39. In contrast, Wetterquist

       and Hoyos do not challenge the agency’s authority to enter a finding of liability, and no finding

       of liability was entered against Tock.

                                                         -9-
       No. 1-22-0996

¶ 27          Plaintiffs also argue that Tock has standing because he is “subject as a traveling motorist

       to Defendant’s continued illegal conduct in the future.” Speculation that Tock might be found

       liable for future violations does not constitute a “distinct and palpable” injury. See Maglio v.

       Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., 2015 IL App (2d) 140782, ¶ 24 (recognizing that

       speculative future harm is not a “distinct and palpable” injury). The circuit court correctly

       determined that Tock lacked standing to bring this action.

¶ 28                                Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

¶ 29          “Generally, a party may not seek judicial relief from an administrative action unless the

       party has exhausted all available administrative remedies.” Arvia v. Madigan, 209 Ill. 2d 520,

       531 (2004). Because the Vehicle Code and the Village Code adopt Illinois Administrative

       Review Law, it “is the sole and exclusive method for obtaining judicial review of a final

       administrative decision.” Midland Hotel Corp. v. Director of Employment Security, 282 Ill. App.

       3d 312, 316 (1996). Illinois Administrative Review Law provides that, “[u]nless review is sought

       of an administrative decision within the time and in the manner herein provided, the parties to

       the proceeding before the administrative agency shall be barred from obtaining judicial review of

       such administrative decision.” 735 ILCS 5/3-102. An action to review “a final administrative

       decision shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint” in the circuit court within 35 days of

       service of the agency’s decision. 735 ILCS 5/3-103; see also 735 ILCS 5/3-104. The circuit

       court’s final decision, order, or judgment is “reviewable by appeal.” 735 ILCS 5/3-112.

¶ 30          “Where the Administrative Review Law is applicable and provides a remedy, a circuit

       court may not redress a party’s grievance through any other type of action.” County of Knox ex

       rel. Masterson v. Highlands, L.L.C., 188 Ill. 2d 546, 551 (1999). “The reasons for the exhaustion

       requirement are to allow the agency to fully develop and consider the facts of the case before it,

                                                      - 10 -
       No. 1-22-0996

       to allow the agency to utilize its expertise, and to allow the aggrieved party to obtain relief from

       the agency, thus making judicial review unnecessary.” Canel v. Topinka, 212 Ill. 2d 311, 320-21

       (2004). The exhaustion doctrine also “helps protect agency processes from impairment by

       avoidable interruptions, allows the agency to correct its own errors, and conserves valuable

       judicial time by avoiding piecemeal appeals.” Castaneda v. Illinois Human Rights Commission,

       132 Ill. 2d 304, 308 (1989).

¶ 31          Although our supreme court requires “strict compliance” with the exhaustion doctrine, it

       also recognizes several exceptions. Id. at 308-09. These exceptions include: where (1) the

       “agency’s jurisdiction is attacked because it is not authorized by statute”; (2) “no issues of fact

       are presented or agency expertise is not involved”; (3) it is “patently futile to seek relief before

       the agency”; and (4) “the agency cannot provide an adequate remedy.” Id. at 309. Plaintiffs

       assert that each of these exceptions are applicable here.

¶ 32                       Agency’s Jurisdiction Attacked as Unauthorized by Statute

¶ 33          Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required where the agency’s jurisdiction is

       attacked as unauthorized by statute. Castaneda, 132 Ill. 2d at 309. This is because the

       “determination of the scope of [an administrative agency’s] power and authority is a judicial

       function and is not a question to be finally determined by the administrative agency itself.”

       County of Knox, 302 Ill. App. 3d at 345.

¶ 34          Plaintiffs argue, for the first time on appeal, that they were not required to exhaust

       administrative remedies because they “have directly challenged Defendant’s [(the Village’s)]

       inherent legal authority *** to issue any ticket” from the red light camera at issue. (Emphasis

       added.) Plaintiffs have waived this argument by failing to raise it in the circuit court. See Sheth v.

       SAB Tool Supply Co., 2013 IL App (1st) 110156, ¶ 59. In any event, this exception is

                                                       - 11 -
       No. 1-22-0996

       inapplicable here, as plaintiffs are not challenging the agency’s authority to adjudicate red light

       camera tickets. See, e.g., Pinkston v. City of Chicago, 2022 IL App (1st) 200957, ¶¶ 27- 28,

       rev’d on other grounds, Pinkston v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL 128575 (rejecting applicability of

       this exception where plaintiff was challenging the City’s authority to issue parking tickets rather

       than the agency’s authority to adjudicate parking tickets and “the tickets [were] issued by the

       City itself, in the exercise of its police power”).

¶ 35                      No Issues of Fact Presented or No Agency Expertise Involved

¶ 36           Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required where there are no issues of fact

       presented, or agency expertise is not involved. Castaneda, 132 Ill. 2d at 309. As the trial court

       properly recognized, agency expertise is involved in resolving factual disputes regarding whether

       the red light camera adequately shows the intersection and whether plaintiffs committed red light

       violations.

¶ 37           The Code Hearing Unit was specifically established as the “administrative adjudication

       system for all violations of the village code.” Code of Stone Park §70.03(G). A hearing officer is

       tasked with “hear[ing] testimony and accept[ing] evidence that is relevant to the existence of the

       code violation” and issuing “a determination of liability or non-liability in accordance with

       consideration of the facts and testimony.” Id. §70.03(H)(1), (Q). The agency routinely

       adjudicates red light camera tickets and possesses the necessary expertise to determine whether

       plaintiffs committed red light violations. Compare Pinkston, 2022 IL App (1st) 200957, ¶ 45

       rev’d on other grounds, Pinkston, 2023 IL 128575 (issues of fact and agency expertise involved

       since the plaintiff “challenges the [parking] violation itself” and the agency “routinely

       adjudicates questions like this”) with Maschek v. City of Chicago, 2015 IL App (1st) 150520, ¶

       47 (no issues of fact or agency expertise involved “since plaintiff does not contest that he was

                                                        - 12 -
       No. 1-22-0996

       speeding”) and Kennedy v. City of Chicago, 2022 IL App (1st) 210492, ¶ 26 (no issues of fact or

       agency expertise implicated where “plaintiffs do not contest that they committed red light

       violations”).

¶ 38                                                 Futility

¶ 39          The “futility” exception excuses a party’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies

       “when it would be patently useless to do so.” Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363, 378 (2003).

       However, “[e]ven clear indications that the administrative agency will rule adversely are not

       sufficient to bypass or terminate the administrative process.” AEH Construction, Inc. v. State

       Department of Labor, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1158, 1163 (2001).

¶ 40           Plaintiffs argue that exhausting administrative remedies would be futile here because the

       Village Code “prohibits introduction of any defense other than the three enumerated defenses” in

       the Village Code, as follows: (1) the vehicle or registration plates were stolen, (2) the driver was

       yielding to an emergency vehicle or was part of a funeral procession, and (3) the vehicle was

       being operated by someone other than the registered owner or a lessee. Code of Stone Park

       §70.03(E). We disagree. The Village Code also allows a registered owner to “contest the merits

       of the alleged violation” at an administrative hearing. Id. §70.03(N). In addition, the actual notice

       of violation provides a “complete list of defenses/grounds for contesting” a ticket, including that

       “[t]he facts alleged in the Notice of Violation are inconsistent with or do not support a finding

       that a violation occurred.” (Emphasis added.)

¶ 41          The record shows that motorists are free to challenge the merits of an alleged violation,

       including the evidence of the violation, at an in-person hearing. For example, Hoyos challenged

       the merits of his alleged violation at his in-person hearing, arguing that the red light camera

       failed to show whether Sherry entered the intersection without coming to a complete stop. The

                                                       - 13 -
       No. 1-22-0996

       hearing officer rejected this argument and found Hoyos liable, but advised him that he could

       “appeal that [decision] to the circuit court.” The fact that Hoyos lost his challenge does not

       establish that it is “patently useless” to contest a red light ticket before the agency or that he

       would have been unsuccessful if he had pursued administrative review in the circuit court. See

       Dvorkin v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 34 Ill. App. 3d 448, 457 (1975) (“We cannot assume that

       the [agency’s] decision will be against plaintiff or that if unsuccessful, appeal will not eventually

       result in a different decision ***.”). One need look no further than Tock’s successful challenge

       to appreciate that not all administrative challenges to red light tickets are futile.

¶ 42                             Agency Unable to Provide an Adequate Remedy

¶ 43           A plaintiff is not required to exhaust administrative remedies where the agency cannot

       provide an adequate remedy. Castaneda, 132 Ill. 2d at 309. Plaintiffs claim that they are not just

       asking “for relief on their own present or past tickets,” but are attacking the Village’s “entire

       enforcement framework” and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, which is “unavailable to

       them through the administrative hearing process or through any review of agency action.”

¶ 44           Plaintiffs initially alleged “a systemic failure entirely similar to the City’s ‘routine

       practice’ as alleged in” Pinkston, 2022 IL App (1st) 200957. However, after briefing was

       completed in this appeal, our supreme court reversed the appellate court’s judgment. See

       Pinkston, 2023 IL 128575, ¶ 2. In light of this reversal, plaintiffs’ argument that “[d]efendant

       cannot distinguish Pinkston in any material way” is irrelevant.

¶ 45           In Pinkston, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the City, alleging that it

       was engaged in a “ ‘routine practice’ of issuing central business district [parking] tickets” to

       “vehicles that were parked outside the central business district,” which carry a higher fine than “

       ‘non-central business district’ ” tickets. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7. Plaintiff claimed that he was issued a central

                                                        - 14 -
       No. 1-22-0996

       business district ticket even though he was parked outside of a central business district, and paid

       the associated fine under duress. Id. ¶ 6. He sought a declaration that the erroneously issued

       tickets were void, an injunction to prevent the further issuance of these tickets, and repayment of

       fines. Id. ¶ 8.

¶ 46           The City moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative

       remedies. Id. ¶ 9. Pinkston had “contested his ticket solely on the basis that he paid the meter via

       the ParkChicago payment app and that somehow his payment became associated with a

       Minnesota license plate rather than with the Illinois license plate affixed to his vehicle.”

       Pinkston, 2022 IL App (1st) 200957, ¶ 41.

¶ 47           A split panel of this court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint, finding that the

       Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) “could not have provided [plaintiff] with the

       ultimate relief he sought, including injunctive and monetary relief.” Pinkston, 2023 IL 128575, ¶

       15. Plaintiff alleged that the City was engaged in the “routine practice” of erroneously issuing

       tickets and sought declaratory and injunctive relief and “restitution for those harmed by the

       practice.” Pinkston, 2022 IL App (1st) 200957, ¶ 54. Since the DOAH is “tasked merely with

       making a finding of liability or no liability” with respect to individual tickets, the appellate court

       “fail[ed] to see” how the DOAH could provide Mr. Pinkston with “any of this relief.” Id.

¶ 48           Our supreme court disagreed, finding no exception to the exhaustion doctrine under the

       facts of Pinkston. Pinkston, 2023 IL 128575, ¶ 34. The court reaffirmed well-established

       precedent that “an aggrieved party cannot circumvent administrative remedies ‘by a class action

       for declaratory judgment, injunction, or other relief.’ ” Id. (quoting People ex rel. Naughton v.

       Swank, 58 Ill. 2d 95, 102 (1974)). The supreme court explained that the administrative procedure

       in place provided plaintiff “with ample opportunity to contest his parking ticket.” Id. ¶ 31.

                                                       - 15 -
       No. 1-22-0996

       Although plaintiff challenged his ticket, by mail, “on the ground the parking meter application he

       used to pay the meter did not record the correct license plate” (id. ¶ 14), he never alleged that “he

       was not parked within the central business district—the very issue at the forefront of his class-

       action lawsuit.” Id. ¶ 32. If he had done so, the hearing officer could have “considered the

       evidence, *** made findings of fact, and, quite possibly, ruled in his favor. *** If he had been

       found liable, he could have filed a complaint for judicial review.” Id.

¶ 49           In rejecting the appellate court’s finding that the agency could not provide plaintiff with

       an adequate remedy (id. ¶ 34), the supreme court recognized, as follows:

               “alleging a ‘routine practice’ or ‘systematic failure’ does not obviate the need for

               exhaustion of remedies. Had plaintiff raised his central business district argument in the

               DOAH and succeeded, he would have had no need for declaratory or injunctive relief.

               The same can be said of similarly situated plaintiffs, who would have had the same

               opportunity to challenge their tickets before the DOAH and then on administrative review

               in the circuit court. Where each individual has an adequate remedy in the administrative

               process, that remedy cannot be avoided by bundling similar claims in a class action.” Id.

               ¶ 40.

¶ 50           The supreme court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that his complaint was “not about

       how the DOAH adjudicates the tickets but how the City issues them” because, “[w]hile the City

       may issue the tickets through its code enforcement officers, it has also implemented an

       administrative process to deal with challenges to those tickets, including a hearing before the

       DOAH.” Id. ¶ 41. Claiming that exhaustion is not required because the City’s actions are at issue

       “would have the effect of nullifying the administrative process for a whole host of code

       violations and flood the circuit court with litigation.” Id.

                                                        - 16 -
       No. 1-22-0996

¶ 51           Similarly, plaintiffs’ allegations of “a systemic failure entirely similar to the City’s

       ‘routine practice’ as alleged in Pinkston [sic]” do not “obviate the need” for plaintiffs to exhaust

       their administrative remedies. See id. ¶ 40. The Village Code and Administrative Review Law

       provide a comprehensive administrative procedure through which plaintiffs could have

       challenged their tickets. Plaintiffs, who “each *** [had] an adequate remedy in the

       administrative process” cannot avoid that remedy by “bundling similar claims in a class action”

       for declaratory, injunctive, or other relief. See id.; see also Naughton, 58 Ill. 2d at 101 (plaintiffs

       could not “disregard” administrative review by filing a class action challenging agency’s practice

       of awarding assistance benefits); Dvorkin, 34 Ill. App. 3d at 100, 105 (class action alleging

       phone company was engaged in a “policy and practice” of providing reduced rates to employees

       was properly dismissed where plaintiffs sought “relief by original proceedings in equity without

       first taking any action before the [agency]”); Midland, 282 Ill. App. 3d at 320-21 (plaintiffs

       could not avoid administrative review “by bringing a *** class action,” even where they

       challenged the department’s alleged “ongoing illegal conduct”).

¶ 52           Following Pinkston, 2023 IL 128575, we granted the parties leave to file supplemental

       memoranda addressing the supreme court’s decision. Plaintiffs now argue that Pinkston is

       distinguishable because “Hoyos and Tock challenged their tickets on the very basis on which

       they brought their lawsuit, and, by doing so, they “proved (at least with respect to Plaintiff

       Hoyos) the inadequacy of any remedy that could be provided by Stone Park.”

¶ 53           As discussed herein, the unsuccessful outcome of Hoyos’ administrative hearing does not

       show that the agency provided an inadequate remedy. Hoyos could have challenged the hearing

       officer’s findings in a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court. See id. ¶ 32

       (noting that if Pinkston unsuccessfully challenged his ticket before the DOAH on central

                                                        - 17 -
       No. 1-22-0996

       business district grounds, he “could have filed a complaint for judicial review”). And

       Wetterquist, like Tock, could have successfully challenged his ticket before the agency.

       Plaintiffs, who “had the immediate opportunity to challenge [their] individual ticket[s] before the

       [Code Hearing Unit] and the circuit court within the confines of the Administrative Review

       Law,” cannot now “circumvent the administrative review process with [their] class-action

       complaint.” Id. ¶ 52. 5

¶ 54           Accordingly, the circuit court correctly ruled that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their

       administrative remedies and no exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine were applicable. 6

¶ 55                                               CONCLUSION

¶ 56           For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County

       dismissing plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.

¶ 57           Affirmed.

               5
                  In their supplemental memorandum, plaintiffs reiterate “two *** public policy concerns” raised
       in their previous briefs. As the Village points out, these arguments impermissibly go beyond the scope of
       addressing the applicability of Pinkston. And, in any event, public policy is not an exception to the
       exhaustion doctrine. See Castaneda, 132 Ill. 2d at 308-09.
                6
                  Because we affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint under section 2-619, we need not
       address the Village’s alternative arguments for dismissal under section 2-615.
                                                         - 18 -