A unanimous Illinois Supreme Court ruling permanently booted a class action concerning allegedly bogus parking tickets issued by the city in Chicago’s Central Business District.
Alec Pinkston originally sued in 2019. He is represented by attorneys Thomas Zimmerman Jr. and Matthew De Re, of the Zimmerman Law Offices, of Chicago.
The lawsuit alleged the city, over several years, wrote more than 30,000 tickets worth at least $65 per violation to cars parked outside the legally defined district, which roughly includes the Loop and much of River North, bordered by Halsted Street on the west, Division Street on the north, Roosevelt Road on the south and Lake Michigan on the east.
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr
| attorneyzim.com
Pinkston’s complaint relied on news reports from CBS Chicago and ProPublica that allegedly revealed ticket practices from 2013-2018 under an ordinance that enhances the fine for violating the city’s metered parking restrictions in the district, such as parking without paying the meter or remaining parked after the meter expires.
The city moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Pinkston didn’t exhaust the possible administrative remedies and paid his fine voluntarily. Although Cook County Judge Caroline Moreland agreed with the city, a 2-1 Illinois First District Appellate Court ruling reversed the dismissal and revived the complaint.
The city asked the Supreme Court to consider the case in September 2022. It agreed, and allowed several non-profit public policy organizations, including the Illinois Municipal League, Chicago Appleseed Center for Fair Courts, Chicago Council of Lawyers, Chicago Jobs Council and Woodstock Institute, to file support briefs. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the city renewed its arguments.
Justice Lisa Holder White wrote the 7-0 opinion, filed Nov. 30.
The appeals court majority determined Pinkston’s complaint should have warranted an exception to the so-called "administrative remedy requirement," because Pinkston wasn’t seeking an individual determination on his parking ticket, but rather had sued over alleged systemic practices. Under the administrative remedy requirement, people are generally required to "exhaust" city administrative hearings and appeals before they can challenge tickets and other government actions against them in court.
But the city argued Pinkston's case "could not avoid exhaustion by bringing a class action for equitable relief based on allegations of a routine course of conduct,” Holder White wrote.
The Supreme Court noted improper parking tickets are “routinely handled at the administrative level” and identified Chicago’s Department of Administrative Hearings as created for such purposes.
“The administrative procedure in place provided plaintiff with ample opportunity to contest his parking ticket,” Holder White wrote. “He even sent a letter identifying his reason for contesting the ticket — that the license plate was incorrect. The hearing officer found him liable, stating plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove his case. What plaintiff did not do was contest his ticket by stating he was not parked within the central business district.”
Neither the department nor Judge Moreland have determined whether Pinkston’s car was parked within the district, according to the opinion, meaning the city still could’ve corrected the alleged error. Pinkston insisted his lawsuit was nevertheless appropriate because the agency couldn’t provide an adequate legal remedy — namely an injunction to prevent future inaccurate citations — but the court said his class action represents an improper approach to “circumvent administrative remedies,” especially since every potential class member would’ve had the same opportunity to contest their individual tickets.
“While 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,” Holder White wrote. “To simply claim it is the city’s actions at issue and thus exhaustion is not required would have the effect of nullifying the administrative process for a whole host of code violations and flood the circuit court with litigation. This was not the legislature’s intent in establishing the Administrative Review Law.”
Because it reached its ruling based only on whether Pinkston exhausted the available administrative remedies, the Supreme Court did not consider the city’s argument Pinkston's lawsuit was also nullified by his decision to pay the ticket before filing suit, a legal doctrine known as the "voluntary payment doctrine."
Attorney Thomas Zimmeman, who represented Pinkston, did not respond to requests from The Cook County Record for comment on the decision.