Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Wolf Point

Wolf Point

|Views: 5,254|Likes:
Published by tbehme8826
Wolf Point ruling
Wolf Point ruling

More info:

Published by: tbehme8826 on Nov 19, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





THE RESIDENCES AT RIVERBEND )CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an )Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation, ELLEN)BARRY, JOHN SIMON, PETER BROIDO, and)WILLIAM AYLESWORTH,))Case No. 13 C 4007Plaintiffs,))v.))CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal Corporation,))Defendant.)
AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge:On May 30, 2013, Plaintiffs, the Residences at Riverbend Condominium Association(“Association”) and individuals Ellen Barry, John Simon, Peter Broido, and WilliamAylesworth, filed the present seven-count Complaint against Defendant City of Chicago seekingdeclaratory and injunctive relief relevant to the development of three buildings with retail, office,residential, and hotel uses in an area known as Wolf Point in downtown Chicago. Before theCourt is Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion and dismisses this lawsuit with prejudice.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the sufficiency of the complaint.
See Hallinan v.Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7 
, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). Under Rule8(a)(2), a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement under Rule8(a)(2) must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which itrests.”
 Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)(citation omitted). Under the federal notice pleading standards, a plaintiff’s “factual allegationsmust be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
 550 U.S. at 555. Put differently, a “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state aclaim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
 Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct.1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting
550 U.S. at 570). “In reviewing thesufficiency of a complaint under the plausibility standard, [courts] accept the well-pleaded factsin the complaint as true.”
 Alam v. Miller Brewing Co.,
709 F.3d 662, 665-66 (7th Cir. 2013). A plaintiff “can plead himself out of court by pleading facts that show that he has no legal claim.”
 Atkins v. City of Chicago
, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir. 2011).
Accepting Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded facts as true, the Association is a non-profit corporationthat owns property at 333 N. Canal Street, Chicago, Illinois. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 3.) The individualPlaintiffs — Ellen Barry, John Simon, John Broido, and William Aylesworth — are members of the Association and also own property at 333 N. Canal Street. (
. ¶¶ 3, 4.) The dispute in thislawsuit pertains to a parcel of land 250 feet away from the Residences at Riverbend known asWolf Point. (
 ¶¶ 1, 3.) The origin of this dispute can be traced back to June 22, 1973, whenthe City enacted a zoning ordinance that created Planned Development No. 98 (“PD-98”). (
 ¶7.) PD-98 affected the zoning for an undeveloped parcel of property adjoining the Chicago River near the Merchandise Mart and Apparel Center and divided the parcel into Subarea A and 2
Subarea B. (
 ¶¶ 7, 8, 14.) The creation of Subarea B, which entails the Wolf Point property atissue in this lawsuit, allowed for the development of “Office Building, Retail, Residential,Parking Facilities and Related Uses.” (
 ¶ 15.) In the past 40 years, however, no one has built astructure for office, retail, or residential use on Wolf Point. (
. ¶ 19.) Instead, the Wolf Point property is used for off-street parking. (
) At the same time, nearby areas, such as River Northand the Fulton River Districts, experienced substantial improvement and development. (
 ¶ 28.) Plaintiffs maintain that the improvements to the nearby areas have been the impetus behind the considerable influx of people and businesses moving into the area. (
30-32.)Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the area’s rapid growth has caused significant stress on theneighborhood’s infrastructure. (
 ¶ 30.) Plaintiffs point to the thousands of residential units built in the last ten years, the growing number of office tenants, the increasing population densityin the area, the amount of new construction, and the announced plan to relocate Google/MotorolaMobility to a property adjacent to Wolf Point. (
. ¶¶ 28-29.) Further, Plaintiffs contend thatstreets crawl during rush hour, traffic back-up creates hazards at railroad crossings, and that firstresponders cannot navigate to address emergencies. (
 ¶¶ 30, 32.) In addition, Plaintiffsmaintain that the construction of a 900,000 square foot office space on nearby Canal Street isunderway and that a local manufacturing and distribution plant is scheduled to expand. (
. ¶ 33.) On May 30, 2012, the owner of Wolf Point filed for an amendment to PD-98 for the purpose of constructing three buildings. (
 ¶ 36.) The owner submitted the application to theOffice of the Zoning Administrator, which then transferred it to the City Clerk, who, in turn, placed the application on the City Council’s agenda. (
) Next, the City Council then referred 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->