Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters v. Village of Schaumburg
Citations: 644 F.3d 353; 190 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2903; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8936; 2011 WL 1632046Docket: 10-1867
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; May 2, 2011; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (Union) filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Village of Schaumburg, claiming a violation of First Amendment rights after the Village denied their requests to protest on the property of the Schaumburg Renaissance Hotel. The Union staged a mock funeral procession on August 18, 2009, under agreed-upon terms with police but faced refusal to enter the premises for a similar demonstration on August 31, 2009. The Union filed the lawsuit on September 2, 2009, alleging the Village restricted access to public property. While the case was pending, the Village also denied a request from the Union to distribute pamphlets on November 19, 2009. In response to the Village's summary judgment motion regarding the August 2009 incident, the Union shifted its focus to the November pamphleting incident, abandoning the August claims due to concerns about First Amendment jurisprudence. The district court granted summary judgment for the Village, concluding that without the August claims, no redressable issues remained. The Union later sought to amend its complaint, but the court denied this motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, considering the record favorably for the non-moving party. The Union contended that the court misinterpreted its summary judgment motion as abandoning claims related to an August 31 incident, arguing it only abandoned claims linked to public property demonstrations while intending to preserve claims about leafleting. However, the Union explicitly stated it was forfeiting all arguments regarding the August 31 demonstration, focusing instead on the right to leaflet during a November incident. The Union's failure to raise the August claims during the summary judgment motion resulted in forfeiture of that theory. Opposing parties must articulate reasons against a summary judgment motion; failure to do so precludes raising those reasons on appeal. The district court appropriately granted summary judgment since complaints must address events already occurred, and injunctive relief requires proof of imminent, irreparable harm. The Union’s complaint filed on September 2, 2009, only addressed the November incident after it was denied summary judgment, and its request to supplement the complaint was deemed untimely. The court had discretion to deny this motion, which it exercised correctly. Although the Union may pursue a new lawsuit regarding the November incident, it hesitated due to potential issues of claim preclusion. The court refrained from commenting on these hypothetical concerns but acknowledged that the Village might need to accept its characterization of separate incidents if a new case arises. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.