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.

Proctor v. McNeil

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

February 3, 2014

THERESA PROCTOR, et. al, Plaintiffs,
v.
SIIMONE MCNEIL, Acting Director of Central Management Services of the State of Illinois, et al., Defendants

Page 1109

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1110

For Robert Brown, Sandra Little, Kathleen Hahn, Charles McKinney, John Andrews, Theresa Proctor, Dennis McManus, Cheryl Sigsbee, Zarel Lambert, Shiela Howard, Max Pierson, Janet Forgy, Roslyn Wylie, Oliver Dorsch, Mary Vitt, Marilyn Byers, Robert Heldman, Oliver Clark, Charles M Evans, Celia Evans, Gregory Otten, Shirley Lodes, William Schowalter, Jeanine Benetier, Marcus Ahmed, Plaintiffs: John Daniel Carr, Igam, Western Springs, IL; Matthew Robison, Barrido & Robison, LLC, Chicago, IL; Michael Lee Maduff, Walker R. Lawrence, Aaron Benjamin Maduff, Maduff & Maduff, LLC, Chicago, IL.

OPINION

Page 1111

MEMORANDUM, OPINION, AND ORDER

AMY J. ST. EVE, United States District Court Judge.

On December 5, 2013, Plaintiffs, who are retired employees of the Illinois State University System, filed the present one-count Amended Class Action Complaint alleging a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim in relation to their monthly retirement annuities and health insurance premiums. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety.

LEGAL STANDARD

" A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint states a claim on which relief may be granted." Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637 (7th Cir. 2012). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include " a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement under Rule 8(a)(2) must " give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted). Under the federal notice pleading standards, a plaintiff's " factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Put differently, a " complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). " In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint under the plausibility standard, [courts] accept the well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true." Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d 662, 665-66 (7th Cir. 2013). A plaintiff " can plead himself out of court by pleading facts that show that he has no legal claim." Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir. 2011).

BACKGROUND

In their Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they are retired employees of the Illinois State University System. (R. 14, Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) In 1998, the Illinois State Universities Retirement

Page 1112

System (" SURS" ) began offering retirees the option to accept a reduction in their monthly pension annuities in exchange for premium-free health insurance. ( Id. ) Plaintiffs further allege that they signed an irrevocable election to accept a reduction in their monthly retirement annuities in exchange for premium-free health insurance from the State of Illinois pursuant to the Illinois Pension Code, 40 ILCS 5/15-135.1. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 1, 2.) Defendants then reduced the retirees' annuities for individuals who elected to received premium-free health insurance and, thereafter, Plaintiffs received free health insurance. ( Id. ¶ 1.) Plaintiffs contend that in July 2013, Defendants unilaterally began charging Plaintiffs health insurance premiums calculated as a percentage of their now-reduced retirement annuity. ( Id. )

The parties do not dispute that Defendants deducted the health insurance premiums at issue under Section 2200.520 of Title 80 of the Illinois Administrative Code allowed by the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act, 5 ILCS 100, which gives Illinois' administrative agencies -- such as the State of Illinois Central Management Services (" CMS" ) -- the power to adopt rules and regulations as defined and limited by the enabling statute. See Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. Hamer, 2013 IL 115130, 998 N.E.2d 1227, 1238, 376 Ill.Dec. 294, 305 (Ill. 2013); Julie Q. v. DCFS, 2011 IL App (2d) 100643, 963 N.E.2d 401, 410, 357 Ill.Dec. 448, 457 (2d Dist. 2011). The authority for implementing ...


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.