A federal judge will allow a commercial waste hauler to continue its lawsuit accusing the village of Riverdale and its mayor of political retaliation.
In an opinion filed March 26 in Chicago, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis invoked the popular CW television series “Riverdale,” which is loosely based on the "Archie" comic books, saying the case involving Tri-State Disposal “alleges intrigue, political subterfuge and the darkness lurking just under the surface of a seemingly picture perfect small town.”
The complaint followed the village’s decision to grant a special use permit allowing Riverdale Materials to open a waste collection business. Tri-State, which started operating in Riverdale in 2002 and signed a 2012 contract that runs through July 2019, filed a seven-count complaint, including an allegation of political retaliation against the village and Mayor Lawrence Jackson.
U.S District Judge Sara Ellis
According to Ellis, problems arose in 2017 when “Jackson assured Tri-State that Riverdale Materials would have to post the same security and pay the same royalties outlined” in Tri-State’s deal to open a facility less than a mile away. Further, Tri-State objected to Riverdale Materials’ proposal because it planned to use a landfill shut down in 1962 despite environmental concerns.
“The property remains unremediated,” Ellis wrote. “In its application for the special use ordinance, Riverdale Materials represented it would use an on-site retention pond for drainage and storm water control. But this pond is not located on its property nor does Riverdale Materials have the right to use it.”
The village and Jackson moved to dismiss, saying Tri-State lacked standing and also failed to state a claim subject to relief. Ellis sided with Tri-State, noting the village has declined future contracts for waste disposal and refused to cooperate to allow the company to complete its current obligations. She said the village refused to pay invoices and falsely accused Tri-State of harassing Jackson and village staff.
Tri-State also directly challenged the ordinance granting the special use permit. Ellis said there is merit in the argument the ordinance improperly allows a competitor to operate, but rejected the alternative approach in which the company raised environmental concerns because Tri-State didn’t sufficiently allege how it would be harmed.
Ellis also said relief is possible for Tri-State because it’s possible a court could nullify the special use permit and award damages. However, she sided with the village in its position that Tri-State failed to allege it was deprived of a constitutionally protected property interest and dismissed two due process claims.
She also dismissed Tri-State’s equal protections claim, noting that although it paid a $50,000 bond and royalties to the village while Riverdale Materials did not, Tri-State’s own pleadings noted those terms were part of a settlement agreement and were not related to anything codified in local ordinance or state or federal law. Ellis also said she would not review the zoning board’s recommendation to adopt the permit ordinance because zoning decisions are administrative, not legislative, dismissing that claim with prejudice.
With respect to retaliation claims, Ellis said Tri-State effectively alleged a widespread practice causing it undue harm as well as that the injury was caused by a person with policymaking authority — the mayor. The village said Tri-State couldn’t bring First Amendment claims because any of its statements about the overall impact of a new waste facility were only made in support of preserving a private business interest. But Ellis found Tri-State raised valid concerns about environmental and safety issues as well as potential municipal financial problems with the Riverdale Materials business plan.
Further, the village’s argument that Tri-State could not prove direct retaliation is a matter to be proved or disporved at trial, Ellis said. And although Jackson sought legislative immunity, Ellis said Tri-State alleged the mayor retaliated not by passing the permit ordinance, but by terminating Tri-State’s contract, failing to set up a spring-clean up, restricting contact to written communication and refusing to pay invoices.
Ellis similarly said that although Tri-State’s breach of contract claims may not be proved at trial, at the pleading stage the allegations are sufficient to proceed.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case No. 18-cv-2138.