A state appeals panel has determined the city of Chicago doesn’t have to pay refunds for red light camera tickets despite an earlier finding it didn’t follow state law when collecting the fines.
In the underlying lawsuit, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, of Chicago and Media, Pa., sued on behalf of named plaintiffs Fred Hampton and Glenn Williams, and a potential class of hundreds of thousands of additional plaintiffs whose red-light tickets predated 2010. Collectively the city collected more than $235 million in fines from those tickets.
The litigation dates to 2019, less than a year after City Hall settled a different class action over legally defective red-light and speeding camera tickets sent from 2010-2015.
Cook County Circuit Court Judge David Atkins repeatedly denied the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs alleged the city violated its own municipal code by failing to fulfill its obligation to issue second notices to vehicle owners accused of running red lights, instead proceeding to determination of liability.
In arguing for dismissal, the city insisted that although there was no limitation on when a plaintiff could seek a determination they weren’t liable for the traffic violation, the law still limits their ability to pursue a refund for any fines they may have paid, even if the courts determine they shouldn't have been forced to pay it.
When Atkins denied the motion a second time, the city asked the Illinois First District Appellate Court to weigh in on the question.
The panel opened its analysis by calling overly broad the city’s submitted question: “May a party seek return of fines paid to a government entity pursuant to void judgments at any time, notwithstanding the applicability of any relevant statute of limitations or other public policy considerations?”
Walker said the panel was cautious of an answer that might implicate things such as fines issued in criminal prosecution and also wouldn’t address the question’s public policy aspects. Instead, it rephrased the question to reference a 2001 Illinois Supreme Court opinion, Sundance Homes v. DuPage County, allowing it to address whether a void judgment rule exception applies “only to refund claims predicated on void statutes, or does the exception also apply to refund claims predicated on void agency actions?”
Whereas Sundance Homes applied to a law eventually determined to be unconstitutional, the pre-2010 red-light class action is only about how the city applied its own municipal core ordinances.
“The court did not expressly consider the tension this ruling had with the void judgment rule in general, but that tension cannot be ignored, nor can the fact the court resolved that tension in favor of applying the time-bar,” Walker wrote. “The only justification we could use to restrict the Sundance Homes exception from application to the type of void judgments in question here would be to identify a substantive distinction between the void judgments at issue in Sundance Homes and void agency determinations.”
Ultimately, the panel determined the concept of a “void” action applies equally to both scenarios, along with a court order later ruled to be void for something like a lack of jurisdiction. It further said the Sundance Homes court stated a preference for uniformly applying statutes for “simple” refund cases in line with legislative intent.
Walker said the red-light plaintiffs made no showing as to why their citations are materially different from something like the development impact fees at issue in Sundance Homes while also distinguishing between the ability, without time limits, to have an action erased and the cap on pursuing financial redress.
The city is represented by attorneys from the Chicago Department of Law. The department declined to comment on the decision, saying the case remains active litigation.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Dom J. Rizzi, Daniel O. Herrera, Mohammed A. Rathur and Ellen Meriwether, of the firm of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, of Chicago and of Media, Pennsylvania. The firm did not respond to a request for comment.