A Cook County judge won’t impede a class action lawsuit accusing the city of Chicago of improperly prosecuting tickets issued to people accused of using a cellphone while driving.
In August 2017, shortly after reaching a $39 million settlement to end a class action over red-light camera tickets, Myron Cherry & Associates attorneys Myron M. Cherry, Jacie Zolna, Benjamin Swetland and Jessica Chavin filed the lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of several named plaintiffs ticketed between 2012 and 2014.
That complaint said the city, rather than giving ticketed motorists the chance to defend themselves in Cook County Circuit Court, funneled those cited through an administrative hearings system, allegedly depriving the accused of their rights under the law and allowing City Hall to collect significantly more money through the process. The plaintiffs didn’t challenge the validity of their citations.
Jacie C. Zolna
| cherry-law.com
Cook County Judge Pamela Meyerson granted summary judgment to the city in August 2021, denying class certification in the case at the same time. But the plaintiffs appealed to the First District Appellate Court, and that court revived the bulk of the lawsuit in September 2022, calling summary judgment “a drastic measure.”
On appeal, the plaintiffs insisted they suffered a legal injury when the administrative hearings department entered judgments against them. The plaintiffs argued those judgments should have been void.
The appeals panel said Meyerson’s ruling effectively deprived the plaintiffs of their right to challenge the tickets. However, the panel noted the Illinois Vehicle Code, until an amendment that took effect Jan. 1, 2014, was “substantially — and intentionally — narrower than the city ordinance,” and affirmed summary judgment on those older tickets.
Judge Meyerson issued an opinion April 14 on the plaintiffs’ renewed request for class certification, which included supplemental briefs both filed following the remand to circuit court. The second motion for certification reflected the appellate ruling on which tickets could be grounds for the lawsuit, and as such covers only people the city cited from 2014 forward, still estimated at “tens of thousands” of drivers, provided the Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings found them liable.
The plaintiffs relied on their macro argument that all such tickets are relevant to their action because the administrative hearing department never had authority under the law to prosecute this type of allegation. The city argued the complaint’s unjust enrichment claim means a “court must necessarily consider the facts and circumstances of each class member’s violation in order to determine whether the city’s collection and retention of fines was ‘unjust’ as to that individual member,” Meyerson wrote.
The city also said its defenses are narrowly tailored and argued the court would have to assess whether each driver committed the violation, what their defense might be, how they responded to their citation, if they paid the fine under duress and if the city had any counterclaims to enforce its ordinance.
Meyerson wrote that although the appeals panel didn’t address certification, it “neatly framed the main issue in the case” by noting the plaintiffs weren’t contending the propriety of the administrative hearings department, but its authority to hear the cases at all, which she said applies to everyone whose citation the agency adjudicated.
The named plaintiffs can adequately represent the class, Meyerson continued, even those who didn’t pay a fine to the city. If a court voids all the fines, those who never paid are off the hook and those who did can pursue damages under the unjust enrichment claim. She said the same logic applied to attorneys Cherry and Zolna as putative class counsel.
Finally, Meyerson said, class action is appropriate to efficiently move the case forward. She certified the class and appointed named plaintiffs Aaron Potek, Adina Klein and Stephen Michelini as class representatives. She set a hearing for May 23.