The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roszkowski, District Judge.
Before the court are defendants' various motions to dismiss and
motions for sanctions. Also before the court is plaintiff's
motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court's subject
matter jurisdiction is asserted to rest upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(1982) and 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (1982). For the reasons set forth
herein, defendants' motions to dismiss are granted and
defendants' motions for sanctions are denied. Plaintiff's motion
to file a Second Amended Complaint is also denied.
On December 30, 1983, plaintiff, Raymond O'Donnell, a resident
taxpayer of Cook County, Illinois filed a three count complaint
in this court. Count I alleged a substantive violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") statute.
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Count II alleged a conspiracy to violate the
RICO statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Count III, a pendent state
action, purported to allege a violation of Chapter 34, Section
1001 et seq. of the Illinois Revised Statutes. ILL.REV.STAT. ch.
34, ¶ 1001 et seq. (1983).
The various defendants named in the plaintiff's initial
complaint included the Cook County Clerk, his election campaign
committee, the office of the County Clerk, five printing
companies located within the County, the County Board of
Commissioners, and all of the individual Board and Board finance
committee members. The complaint alleged the Board, upon the
urging of the County Clerk, approved contracts for the printing
of election ballots with the five named printing companies.
According to the plaintiff's complaint, the contracts with the
five named printers were extended and approved without complying
with the public notice and sealed competitive bidding
requirements of ILL.
REV.STAT. ch. 34, ¶ 1006 (1983). The complaint further alleges
that various of the named printers made substantial contributions
to the County Clerk's election campaign. In his prayer for
relief, plaintiff sought to require the defendants to return to
Cook County all of the money paid out on the allegedly unlawful
contracts. In addition, plaintiff sought treble damages on behalf
of the County.
On February 2, 1984, plaintiff filed his First Amended
Complaint. The plaintiff's First Amended Complaint simply added
various allegations to the effect that one of the five named
printers had substantially completed the printing it was
contracted to perform at the time the County Clerk urged the
Board to authorize the contract. No counts were added or deleted;
the prayer for relief was not altered.
On February 29, 1984, the defendants filed various motions to
dismiss. The defendants' motions sought to dismiss Counts I and
II on the grounds that they failed to allege a separate
enterprise, any predicate offense or any RICO injury. In
addition, defendants contended the plaintiff lacked standing to
bring Counts I and II. The defendants also sought to dismiss
Count III on the grounds no pendent jurisdiction remained.
On March 7, 1984, this court set a briefing schedule allowing
the plaintiff until March 21, 1984 to file a response to the
various motions to dismiss and giving the defendants until March
28, 1984 to reply. On March 19, 1984, plaintiff filed a motion
for an extension of time, until April 27, 1984, ". . . to file
his consolidated answer to [the] defendants' motions to dismiss."
In this court's absence, that extension was granted by the
Honorable Judge Milton I. Shadur. On April 5, 1984, in view of
the extension granted the plaintiff, this court extended the time
for the defendants to file their replys to May 7, 1984.
On May 2, 1984, plaintiff again presented a motion seeking an
extension of time, until May 25, 1984, ". . . in which to respond
to [the] Defendants' motions to dismiss." The court again granted
the requested extension. On May 8, 1984, the defendant Clerk
filed his initial motion to recover costs and attorneys' fees;
the motion arose out of the allegedly improper notice given with
respect to plaintiff's May 2, 1984 motion for an extension of
time. After the hearing on the defendant Clerk's motion, the
court shortened the "[t]ime for plaintiff to file [a]
consolidated response to defendants' [m]otion[s] to [d]ismiss
with supporting memoranda" to May 25, 1984. The court took the
defendant Clerk's motion for costs under advisement. On May 17,
1984, upon the plaintiff's renewed motion, the time for
responding was again extended to May 25, 1984.
On May 25, 1984, plaintiff filed a motion to add Omega Graphics
as a plaintiff, an amended nine-count complaint, and a memorandum
in support of his proposed amended complaint. In addition to
seeking recovery on behalf of the County, Omega Graphics prayed
for damages on its own behalf. On June 5, 1984, defendants filed
a joint motion for sanctions, for denial of leave to file the
Second Amended Complaint, to strike the Second Amended Complaint,
and to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice. All of
the motions were taken under advisement.
On September 6, 1984, plaintiff presented a motion for leave to
file his amended complaint and for leave to add Omega Graphics as
a plaintiff. Defendants renewed their previously filed motions.
The entire matter was again taken under advisement.
A. Motion To Dismiss: Standing
Defendants challenge the plaintiff's standing to bring the
present action on two distinct grounds. First, the majority of
the defendants contend the plaintiff lacks standing because he
has failed to allege a cognizable "racketeering injury." Second,
relying upon Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20
L.Ed.2d 947 (1968) and Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct.
1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982), the defendant