From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheridan v. Village of Bensenville

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Jul 22, 2002
No. 02 C 3629 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 22, 2002)

Opinion

No. 02 C 3629

July 22, 2002


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


In a case filed in state court in DuPage County on December 14, 2001, plaintiff alleged that the defendants, the Village of Bensenville and various public officials, destroyed a building on his property without just compensation "in violation of plaintiff's rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Sections 1, 2, 6, 12, 15 and 23 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Illinois." He asked for a writ of mandamus directing the defendants to initiate an eminent domain proceeding. That complaint was dismissed upon defendants' motion, an amended complaint was apparently filed and withdrawn, and a "Second Amended Complaint for writ or Mandamus" was filed May 13, 2002. That complaint was promptly removed. Plaintiff now seeks to remand, contending that defendants lost their right to remove when they failed to do so within 30 days of the service of the original complaint. The motion to remand is granted.

Defendants, opposing the motion to remand, contend that the references in the original complaint to federal constitutional rights are vague, and not until the second amended complaint did the plaintiff sufficiently (although not sufficiently enough) set forth a federal claim. We disagree. There is, perhaps, a symbiotic relationship between the issues relating to the removal and defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants contend that there can be no federal constitutional claim because plaintiff has adequate state remedies, which he has not pursued. Plaintiff says he is trying to pursue them; that is what his lawsuit is all about, But, say defendants, mandamus to compel the village to initiate an eminent domain proceeding is not the proper way to go. Plaintiff must bring an inverse condemnation proceeding seeking damages. Plaintiff counters by contending that his petition for a writ is an inverse condemnation proceeding.

We decline to jump into that controversy. What we do know is that plaintiff, from the start, has claimed that governmental actors destroyed a commercial building on his land without payment of just compensation in violation of specific federal constitutional rights. Whether the violations of those rights triggers a right to an eminent domain proceeding, or whether plaintiff must amend to sue directly for damages or for a declaration, we leave to the state court.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiff's motion to remand is granted.


Summaries of

Sheridan v. Village of Bensenville

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Jul 22, 2002
No. 02 C 3629 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 22, 2002)
Case details for

Sheridan v. Village of Bensenville

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR SHERIDAN, Plaintiffs, vs. VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE, a body politic…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: Jul 22, 2002

Citations

No. 02 C 3629 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 22, 2002)