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.

FLORES v. VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE

March 25, 2003

JUAN FLORES & ANTONIA FLORES, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
VILLAGE OF BENSENVILLE, ILLINOIS, BENSENVILLE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JOHN GEILS, PEGGY WALBERG, JOE KRASS, RAY BASSO, BOB STRANDT, AND BARBARA WANZUNG, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE BENSENVILLE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND WILLIAM HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS BUILDING DIVISION SUPERVISOR, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul E. Plunkett, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In their five-count amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that the Village of Bensenville, the members of its Board of Trustees and the Supervisor of its Building Division violated the Fair Housing Act (Counts I and II) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1982 and 1983 (Counts III-V).*fn1 Defendants have filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

Preliminary Statement

Parties filing or opposing motions for summary judgment in this district must comply with Local Rule 56.1. That rule requires the moving party to submit a statement of material facts as to which there is no issue. The party opposing the motion must submit a response to the moving party's statement and "a statement, consisting of short numbered paragraphs, of any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment, including references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." LR 56.1(b). Plaintiffs did not submit two separate statements as contemplated by the rule. Instead, they inserted the additional facts that they believe require denial of summary judgment into their responses to defendants' fact statement. As a result, the Court has had to wade through page-long "responses" to individual fact statements to determine which facts are actually in dispute. Though we will not strike the nonconforming fact statement in this case, plaintiffs and their counsel should not expect such lenient treatment in the future.

Facts*fn2

Juan and Antonia Flores own several properties in the Village of Bensenville ("the Village"): 234 Park Street, 235 Marion Court, 238 Park Street, 237 Marion Court and 227 Garden Street. (Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 2; Pl.'s LR 56.1(b) Stmt ¶ 2.) The houses at 234 Park Street and 235 Marion Court share a single lot of land as do the houses at 238 Park Street and 237 Marion Court. (Compl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs have always resided at either 237 Marion Court or 238 Park Street. (Defs.' LR 56.1(a)(3) Stmt. ¶ 5.) They rent the houses at 235 Marion Court and 234 Park Street to Hispanic individuals. (Id. ¶¶ 7-11.)

In 1988, the Village enacted Ordinance No. 4-88. (Id., Ex. K.) The ordinance created an Existing Structures Code. (Id.) The regulations in article four of that code, which govern light, ventilation and space requirements, are identical to the regulations in article four of the 1987 BOCA National Existing Structures Code. (Compare id., Ex L at 26-30 with id., Ex. J at 46-57.)

Village Inspections

In 1994, the Village inspected the houses at 234 and 238 Park Street. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs do not recall whether they received over-occupancy citations after those inspections, but no one moved out of either house as a result. (Id. ¶ 18.)*fn3

On April 30, 1996, plaintiffs received a letter from their lawyer regarding repairs the Village wanted them to make to 234 and 238 Park Street. (Id. ¶ 20.) Plaintiffs made the requested repairs. (Id.)

In June or July 1997, the Village once again inspected 234 and 238 Park Street. (Id. ¶ 21.) The inspector told plaintiffs they needed to repair the plumbing, which they did to the inspector's satisfaction. (Id.)

The Village again inspected in April 1998. (Id. ¶ 22.) The inspector told plaintiffs that the tenant who lived in the basement of 234 Park Street had to move. (Id.) Plaintiffs said there was no tenant and that was "the end of it." (Id.)

In 1999, plaintiffs sought, and obtained, from the Village a permit to put a new roof on 234 Park Street. (Id. ¶ 23.) In September 1999, the Village inspected and approved the roof. (Id.)

In 1995, the Village inspected 235 Marion Court. (Id. ¶ 19.) After the inspection, plaintiffs were told that the furnace was not working properly, so they replaced it. (Id.)

The Village never issued over-occupancy citations for 235 or 237 Marion Court. ...


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.