Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SHAKMAN v. DEMOCRATIC ORGAN. OF COOK CTY.

March 5, 1981

MICHAEL L. SHAKMAN AND PAUL M. LURIE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY; DEMOCRATIC COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF COOK COUNTY AND ALL ITS MEMBERS; GEORGE W. DUNNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COOK COUNTY, AS PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF COOK COUNTY, AND AS CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF COOK COUNTY; CITY OF CHICAGO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; JANE R. BYRNE, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO; MORGAN M. FINLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY; EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TREASURER OF COOK COUNTY; STANLEY J. KUSPER, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLERK OF COOK COUNTY; THOMAS C. HYNES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSESSOR OF COOK COUNTY; FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF COOK COUNTY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; RICHARD J. ELROD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY; THE CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.

ORDER

This cause comes before the court on the motions of the Democratic Organization of Cook County; the Democratic Central Committee of Cook County; Richard J. Elrod, the Sheriff of Cook County; Morgan M. Finley, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County; Sidney R. Olsen, the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County; Stanley T. Kusper, Jr., the County Clerk of Cook County; Edward J. Rosewell, the Treasurer of Cook County; Thomas C. Hynes, the Assessor of Cook County; George W. Dunne, President, Cook County Board of Commissioners; the Chicago Park District; and the City of Chicago [hereinafter the Democratic defendants] to have the judgment order of this court dated September 24, 1979, 481 F. Supp. 1315, certified for appeal under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P.,*fn1 and on the motion of the plaintiffs for entry of judgment granting relief as to hiring practices. For the reasons hereinafter stated, all of these motions will be denied. The September 24, 1979 judgment order, however, will be certified for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Rule 54(b) Motions

Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

  When more than one claim for relief is presented in
  an action, . . . or when multiple parties are
  involved, the court may direct the entry of a final
  judgment as to

  one or more but fewer than all of the claims or
  parties . . . upon an express determination that
  there is no just reason for delay and upon an express
  direction for the entry of judgment.

Under Rule 54(b), however, only judgment orders which are final in nature can properly be certified for appeal.*fn2 Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 1978); Acha v. Beame, 570 F.2d 57, 62 (2d Cir. 1978). A non-final order, even when it pertains only to some of the parties in the litigation, is not appealable under the rule.

  In the order entered by this court on September 24, 1979,
partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs on the
question of whether the Democratic defendants, in their
capacities as governmental employers, by conditioning their
hiring of certain public employees upon party or political
affiliation violated the candidate-plaintiffs' constitutionally
protected right to an equal chance to be elected, and the
voter-plaintiffs' right to have a reasonably effective voice in
the electoral process. The judgment order was, by its terms,
limited to the issue of the Democratic defendants' liability,
with the question of relief left for later resolution. Shakman v.
Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481 F. Supp. 1315, 1325
n. 4 (N.D.Ill. 1979). The September 24, 1979 order thus was quite
similar to that at issue in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v.
Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1967),
regarding which the United States Supreme Court noted:

   . . The order . . . constitutes a grant of partial
  summary judgment limited to the issue of petitioner's
  liability. Such judgments are by their terms
  interlocutory, see Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 56(c), and
  where assessment of damages or awarding of other
  relief remains to be resolved have never been
  considered to be `final' within the meaning of
  28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Id. at 744, 96 S.Ct. at 1206 (emphasis supplied).

After Liberty Mutual, the judgment order entered by this court on September 24, 1979 cannot reasonably be considered final for purposes of Rule 54(b). Lewis v. Tobacco Workers' International Union, 577 F.2d 1135, 1138-39, 1138 n. 5 (4th Cir. 1978); Acha v. Beame, 570 F.2d 57, 62 (2d Cir. 1978). That being true, the Democratic defendants' motions to have that order certified for appeal under Rule 54(b) must be denied.

    Motion for Entry of Judgment Granting Relief as to Hiring
                            Practices

Through their motion for entry of judgment granting relief as to hiring practices, the plaintiffs propose to have the Democratic defendants implement a number of hiring-related procedures which, if followed, would insure that the defendants' hiring practices did not operate to impermissibly impinge upon their [the plaintiffs'] Constitutionally protected rights.

Their proposed procedures, the plaintiffs quite properly contend, while comprehensive, are not so complex or extensive as to make implementation of them oppressive to the defendants. Implementation of these procedures, however, as they are rather numerous and reasonably involved, would very probably prove costly to the defendants, a point of significance when it is remembered that it is public money which will be expended in this regard. Further, because the plaintiffs' proposed procedures represent a substantial change from the hiring procedures presently being utilized by the defendants, implementation of them likely will, at least at the outset, be quite burdensome and cumbersome to the defendants' personnel.

When consideration is given to these facts,*fn3 as the legal questions associated with this aspect of the Democratic defendants' liability also are reasonably unsettled, the court believes that the interests of justice would best be served if the question of the defendants' liability is resolved more completely before any affirmative relief is imposed upon them. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.