The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Virginia M. Kendall
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ORDER
Plaintiff Yaodi Hu ("Hu"), a pro se litigant, brought suit against Defendants, Peter Huey ("Huey"), Angela Ip ("Ip"), and K.Y. Chau ("Chau") (collectively the "Defendants") alleging that they conspired to restrain his trade, violate his First Amendment right to free speech and retaliated against him in connection with a commercial lease for property. His allegations stem from the Defendants' eviction action against him and his wife, Jun Zhou ("Zhou") -- an action which, at the time of this Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, was pending in state court.
Hu's History of Federal Court Filings
Hu is no stranger to the federal judicial system nor to filing complaints alleging discriminatory actions under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and the Sherman Antitrust Act. See Case Nos. 06 C 6589, 07 C 844, 07 C 3748, 07 C 3822, 07 C 5494, 07 C 7203, 08 C 839, 08 C 1032, 08 C 1033, 08 C 2007, 07 C 3428. Yaodi Hu has filed twelve federal claims since October 25, 2006 including five cases since February of 2008. In Hu's first federal claim, Bell v. Martinez, Hu and others filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to enjoin the State of Illinois from enforcing Article 3 of the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act and the Illinois Predatory Lending Database Pilot Program because it had a discriminatory effect on residents of ten zip codes. See 06 C 5809; Cplt. ¶ 1. Hu's counsel withdrew from representing Hu but continued to represent the other plaintiffs. On November 29, 2006, Hu, now as a pro se litigant, sought to amend the Complaint and file a 68-page cause of action on behalf of a class of borrowers seeking a loan from a loan broker or a loan originator licensed under the Illinois Residential Mortgage License Act in the Pilot Area. Dk. 34. Hu's Complaint, filed against numerous defendants including Governor Rod Blagojevich and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, alleged that the defendants violated the RICO and Sherman Antitrust Acts, in addition to other allegations. The District Court Judge dismissed Hu's Complaint, Hu moved to reconsider, and appealed the District Court's denial to the Seventh Circuit. Dk. 189. In Hu v. Cantwell, et. al, Hu, pro se, sought compensatory and punitive damages against First Chicago Realty and two individual defendants for violating the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1982, the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and for breach of contract. In short, Hu alleged that the defendants discriminated against him as a minority buyer. The case is pending.
Less than four months after filing the Cantwell case, Hu filed another action -- Hu v. Park National Bank, against Park National Bank, Donald R. Nichols, Postmaster of the U.S. Postal Service, the U.S. Postal Service, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, and Walinski & Trunkett, P.C. Hu's Complaint stemmed from the sale of a piano. See Dk. 1. When Hu notified defendants that the piano was purchased using counterfeit money order, the defendants reported the matter to federal officials which report Hu believes to be a violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act. In June, 2007, Hu's counsel withdrew, Hu filed a pro se appearance, and moved to file a second amended complaint adding seven new defendants and thirteen new claims for violations of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and various federal criminal and bank statutes. See Dk. 28, 32, 35. The District Court denied Hu's motion on the basis that allowing Hu at such a late date to add seven defendants and a "myriad of new claims would greatly protract the time and resources consumed by this litigation." Dk. 65, 89. Hu moved to reconsider and the Court denied his motion. Dk. 97. Subsequently, the District Court granted Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Hu moved to reconsider, his motion was again denied, and Hu appealed to the Seventh Circuit. Dk. 97-98, 105, 109.
On July 3, 2007, five months after Hu filed the Park National Bank case, Hu, appearing pro se, filed two more cases within 6 days of each other-- Hu v. Village of Midlothian, 07 C 3748 and the case before this Court, Hu v. Huey, 07 C 3822. Both cases concern purported violations 42 U.S.C. § 1981, in addition to other claims. In Hu v. Midlothian, Hu alleged that the Village of Midlothian violated his constitutional rights when it repeatedly fined him under municipal code 4-18-9(b)5 for overgrown vegetation and for denying his application to display a sign advertising his insurance business. Hu amended his complaint on three occasions and the case is pending before the District Court. Hu's pending action before this Court against Defendants Huey, Ip, and Chau is described in detail below. Two months after filing the Village and Huey cases, Hu filed Hu v. Mann, 07 C 5494, pro se, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act, and the Illinois Antitrust Act. Hu alleged, in short, that Defendants Elizabeth Mann conspired with First American Title to refuse to deal with Quality Title Insurance and Hu in connection with the closing of a real estate transaction. Hu's Complaint was dismissed on January 8, 2008 for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Dk. 8.
One month before the District Court dismissed Hu's claim against Mann, Hu filed his seventh federal court claim--this time against the Village of Maywood. See Hu v. Village of Maywood, 07 C 7203. Hu alleged that the Village violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when it towed Hu's vehicles from his private property. Dk. 1. The Defendants moved to dismiss and Hu amended his Complaint. Still pending before the District Court is Defendants motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
The year 2008 has proved to be Hu's most litigious year to date. Since February 8, 2008, Hu has filed five causes of action against seventeen defendants. See Case Nos. 08 C 839, 08 C 1032, 08 C, 1033, 08 C 2007, 08 C 3825. Hu is suing the City of Chicago under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1983 for towing two of his vehicles alleging that the City targets ethnic Chinese minorities when it issues parking tickets. See 08 C 839. Hu filed a motion for preliminary injunction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the District Court denied Hu's Motion. Dk. 16. Hu moved to reconsider and the District Court denied his motion on May 29, 2008. Dk. 27. One day later, Hu filed a second Motion to Reconsider which was denied on June 5, 2008. Dk. 31. Hu's appeal to the Seventh Circuit is pending and subject to dismissal under Circuit Rule 3(b). Dk. 27.
Twelve days after Hu's first 2008 federal case, Hu filed two cases on the same day-- Hu v. Pearl River Piano USA and Hu v. American Bar Association, 08 C 1032 and 08 C 1033, respectively. In Hu v. Pearl River Piano USA, he alleged that he contracted with Pearl River to purchase several pianos. Because Hu "did not fit into a typical piano dealer prototype: a white male," Hu believes that the contract that he signed contained discriminatory terms in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Sherman Antitrust Act. Cplt.¶ 17; Dk. 1. Hu's third lawsuit for the month of February and second lawsuit filed on February 20, 2008, Hu v. American Bar Association, seeks redress for purported violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause, based on the ABA's failure to accredit Hu with two years of credit hours obtained at Kent Law School in 1991. Cplt. Dk. 1.
Hu waited almost two months before he filed his fourth 2008 lawsuit-- Hu v. Timothy Evans, et. al., 08 C 2007. This cause of action stemmed from a forcible entry and detainer action filed by one of the defendants in the case at bar, Peter Huey, against Hu in Illinois State Court. Judge Sheryl Plethers presided over the action and Hu was forcibly evicted for failure to pay rent.*fn1 Hu alleges that he was deprived of a right to a fair trial because, among other allegations, Judge Plethers and Huey's counsel conspired against Hu and struck his jury demand on the basis of Hu's race. According to Hu's Complaint, Judge Plether's reason for striking his jury demand was that Hu waived it in his lease with Huey. Cplt. ¶ 21. Hu pleaded that Judge Plethers failed to take into account that Hu may have later orally amended the lease agreement. Id. A bench trial was held on December 13, 2007 but Hu refused to consent to the Court's jurisdiction. Id. at ¶ 27. The Judge advised Hu that he could not participate in the proceeding unless he submitted himself to the Court's jurisdiction. Hu insisted that he could participate in the trial without submitting to the Court's jurisdiction until the Court's Deputy threatened to remove Hu from the proceedings. Id. at ¶ 29.
During the State Court proceeding, Hu moved to intervene on behalf of two corporations, Citywide Mortgage Lending Corporation and Citywide Real Estate Corp. See Cplt. Dk. 1, ¶ 40. Hu was warned against filing any other pleadings or documents on behalf of anyone but himself lest Hu face prosecution by the State's Attorney for practicing law without a license. Id. Hu appealed Judge Plether's decision to the Illinois Appellate Court and simultaneously filed federal claims against Defendants Allen Meyer, Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans, Honorable Judges Pamela Hill Veal and Sheryl Plethers, Brian Lewis, John Buscher, Park National Bank, Walinksi & Trunkett, and Robert Walinski alleging violations of the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses and the Fair Debt Collection Act.
On July 3, 2008, Hu filed his twelfth federal case-- the fifth action filed this year-- against Florencio Ramirez and L.A. Auto Body Inc. alleging that the defendants treated him differently on account of his race when they delayed repairs to his automobile. See Hu v. L.A. Auto Body Inc., 08 C 3825.
Hu has also been a party-defendant in two federal causes of action. See 96 C 3428, and 98 C 7853. In Re/Max Intl Inc v. Quality Realty Inc., the Court held Hu in contempt of court and sanctioned Hu $1,000 per day for failure to comply with court orders. 96 C 3428; ...