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.

Money Market Pawn, Inc. v. Boone County Sheriff Duane Wirth

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

January 17, 2014

Money Market Pawn, Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Boone County Sheriff Duane Wirth, et al., Defendant

For Money Market Pawn, Inc., Plaintiff: Mark Alan Rouleau, Law Office of Mark Rouleau, Rockford, IL.

For Boone County Sheriff Duane Wirth, Patrick Imrie, Boone County Sheriff Deputy, William Kaiser, Boone County Sheriff Deputy, Salvatore LoPiccolo, Boone County Assistant State's Attorney, Defendants: Stephen E. Balogh, LEAD ATTORNEY, Adam Blaine Etchason Lied, Joel M. L. Huotari, Laura D Mruk, Williams McCarthy, LLP, Rockford, IL.

Page 904

ORDER

FREDERICK J. KAPALA, District Judge.

Defendants' motion to dismiss [6] is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's

Page 905

motion to strike [16] is granted. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Winnebago County, Illinois. The clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Circuit Clerk of Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Winnebago County, Illinois. This case is closed.

STATEMENT

In a 14-count complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Winnebago County, Illinois, plaintiff, Money Market Pawn, Inc., sued Boone County Sheriff Duane Wirth; Deputies Patrick Imrie and William Kaiser; and Boone County Assistant State's Attorney Salvatore Lopiccolo pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants deprived it of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants removed the action to this court relying on federal question subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Before the court are defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and plaintiff's motion to strike a portion of defendants' reply memorandum. For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motion to strike is conceded by defendants and is therefore granted.

I. ALLEGATIONS

Robert Rutledge told Deputies Imrie and Kaiser that his son, Jeremy Hunt, stole his welder and chain saw and pawned the items with plaintiff.[1] Deputy Imrie knew that Rutledge was hesitant to have his son prosecuted for the theft. On October 8, 2012, the deputies went to plaintiff's pawn shop and demanded the release of the items. Plaintiff's principal and employee, Matthew Sigley, informed the deputies that they did not have the proper paperwork and asked them if they had made an arrest or if charges were being pressed. Sigley also told the deputies that he would be happy to place a police hold on the items until the deputies were certain that charges would be filed. The deputies refused to put a hold order on the items, said " we're taking the tools," and seized the items without producing an order or warrant. Instead, the deputies gave Sigley an evidence inventory and receipt for the items. Thereafter, Rutledge told the deputies that he did not want to follow through with charges against his son. After the items were seized, but before the items were released, Sigley telephoned Deputy Imrie and told him that Hunt had pawned the welder on three prior occasions such that Sigley had no reason to doubt that it belonged to Hunt; that Sigley was concerned that Rutledge and Hunt were working together to get the items back without repaying the loan; and that plaintiff still had a legal claim to the items and wanted them back if Hunt was not going to be prosecuted for the theft. Deputy Imrie told Sigley that he would speak with someone at the States Attorney's Office about plaintiff's legal interest in the items.

On October 9, 2012, Assistant States Attorney Lopiccolo advised Deputy Imrie that plaintiff's legal claim to the items did not supercede Rutledge's claim to the items and to release the items to Rutledge because charges were not being filed. After Deputy Imrie told Sigley what Lopiccolo

Page 906

had said, Sigley called Lopiccolo who confirmed that he told the deputies to give the items to Rutledge. Without providing plaintiff with notice of a hearing regarding the disposition of the items, the deputies and Lopiccolo ...


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.