A Cook County judge has curbed a class action lawsuit seeking to make the city of Chicago pay for allegedly improperly prosecuting tickets issued to people accused of using a cell phone while driving, saying a recent state Supreme Court ruling defeats their core argument.
The ticketed motorists quickly moved to appeal the ruling to get a higher opinion on the viability of their claims.
Cook County Circuit Judge Pamela Meyerson ruled in late January that the city of Chicago should prevail on the question of whether City Hall had improperly routed at least tens of thousands of distracted driving tickets through the city's administrative hearings process, rather than into court.
In the ruling, Meyerson said a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling declared that so-called home rule municipalities - a legal grouping which includes the city of Chicago - aren't prevented by state law or the state constitution from handling certain traffic citations in their own municipal administrative proceedings, rather than in state court.
The plaintiffs parked their lawsuit against Chicago in Cook County Circuit Court in 2017.
The lawsuit was brought by attorneys from the firm of Myron Cherry & Associates, of Chicago. That same firm had earlier reached a $39 million deal with the city to end a different class action over alleged improper prosecution of red-light camera tickets.
The distracted driving class action asserted the city had funneled those tickets through the city's administrative hearing system, rather than giving the motorists a chance to defend themselves in Cook County court.
They said this allowed the city to collect significantly more money through the process.
The plaintiffs did not challenge the validity of their citations.
Judge Meyerson granted summary judgment to the city in 2021, setting up an appeal.
About a year later, the Illinois First District Appellate Court revived the bulk of the lawsuit, finding Meyerson's ruling had effectively deprived the plaintiffs of their right to challenge tickets issued since January 2014, after the city moved to amend its distracted driving ordinance to align with state law.
Tickets issued before the city altered its ordinance in 2014 could be handled by administrative hearing, the appeals court ruled at the time.
In the months since, the plaintiffs and the city exchanged briefs, as each side argued for summary judgment, or a final ruling in their favor without a trial on the basis of legal arguments alone.
However, last year, the Illinois Supreme Court rendered a decision in a different dispute, which also involved the ability of a city to handle traffic tickets in administrative hearings, rather than court.
In that case, the state high court tossed out tickets prosecuted by the city of Joliet against truckers for operating vehicles on certain city streets which exceeded posted weight and length limits.
In the process, though, the Illinois Supreme Court explicitly ruled that a section of Illinois' traffic code, known as Division 2.1, does not necessarily prevent home rule cities from prosecuting ordinance violations, which "involved 'traffic regulations involving the movement of vehicles'" through administrative hearings, rather than in court.
Under previous Illinois appellate court rulings, state courts had held the language in Division 2.1 was "jurisdictional" - meaning any citations that involved "the movement of vehicles" were limited to proceedings in county circuit courts.
The ruling in the Joliet case, known as Cammacho v Joliet, overturned the jurisdictional presumption concerning the Division 2.1 provision.
Following the ruling, the plaintiffs "conceded" that Division 2.1 doesn't prevent the city from trying their distracted driving citations in Chicago administrative hearings.
But they attempted to "pivot" their case to now argue the city's ordinances, like those in Joliet, do not allow the city to try the citations administratively. They further accused the city of deleting the so-called "Reporting Ordinance ... as part of its alleged scheme to cover up its unlawful conduct."
In response, the city asserted the plaintiffs had essentially attempted improperly to "remake" their case on the fly.
Judge Meyerson rejected the plaintiffs' "pivot," saying she believed the plaintiffs fell short of showing Chicago's "Reporting Ordinance required the city to adjudicate the cell phone violations in Circuit Court."
"This is a new theory that cannot now serve as the basis for Plaintiffs' recovery...," Meyerson wrote. "The only theory properly pleaded is that Division 2.1 deprived the City's Department of Administrative Hearings of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs conceded, based on Cammacho, that they cannot prevail on this theory."
Meyerson granted summary judgment to the city of Chicago and denied the plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their case and try again, essentially rendering a final ruling.
The plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the case back to the First District Appellate Court to challenge Meyerson's ruling.
Plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys Myron M. Cherry, Jacie Zolna, Benjamin Swetland and Jessica Chavin, of the Myron M. Cherry firm.