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.

Lattimore v. Village of Streamwood

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

May 11, 2018

KERMITT LATTIMORE and CAROL G. HUTTON-LATTIMORE, Plaintiffs,
v.
VILLAGE OF STREAMWOOD, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          AMY J. ST. EVE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         The Court grants in part with prejudice, grants in part without prejudice, and denies Defendants' motion to dismiss brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). [26]. The Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this ruling by no later than June 8, 2018. Status hearing set for May 31, 2018 is stricken and reset to June 13, 2018 at 8:30 a.m.

         STATEMENT

         On November 30, 2017, Plaintiffs Kermit Lattimore and Carol G. Hutton-Lattimore filed the present seven-count Complaint against Defendant Village of Streamwood (“Streamwood”) and certain Streamwood police officers bringing constitutional claims, along with state law claims, pursuant to the Court's supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a). Before the Court is Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' state law claims as alleged in Counts V and VI of the Complaint with prejudice. The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment federal malicious prosecution claim as alleged in Count II. Last, the Court grants in part without prejudice the remainder of Defendants' motion.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         “A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges the viability of a complaint by arguing that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Hill v. Serv. Emp. Int'l Union, 850 F.3d 861, 863 (7th Cir. 2017). 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). Pursuant to the federal pleading standards, a plaintiff's “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). 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).

         When determining the sufficiency of a complaint under the plausibility standard, courts accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Forgue v. City of Chicago, 873 F.3d 962, 966 (7th Cir. 2017). Moreover, a “limitations defense is not often resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because ‘a complaint need not anticipate and overcome affirmative defenses, such as the statute of limitations.'” Amin Ijbara Equity Corp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Nevertheless, “dismissal at this early stage is appropriate when the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish that the suit is indeed tardy.” Id.; see also Collins v. Vill. of Palatine, Ill., 875 F.3d 839, 842 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Although the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate if the complaint contains everything necessary to establish that the claim is untimely.”).

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Kermit Lattimore (“Lattimore”) and Maribeth Rivera (“Rivera”) were married and began living together at their Streamwood residence (“Residence”), which was a pre-marital asset owned by Lattimore. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff Carol G. Hutton-Lattimore (“Hutton-Lattimore”) is Lattimore's daughter, who lived at the Residence. (Id. ¶ 2.) Eventually Lattimore's and Rivera's marriage became troubled resulting in Lattimore filing a petition for dissolution of the union. (Id. ¶ 3.)

         On January 26, 2015, Lattimore returned to the Residence with his nephew Steven and Hutton-Lattimore. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs allege that at that time Rivera had locked Lattimore out of the Residence. (Id. ¶ 5.) Once they gained entry into the Residence, Rivera's son, Michael, assaulted Lattimore with a knife. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 7.) Thereafter, Lattimore dialed 911 to request police assistance. (Id. ¶ 9.) Defendant Officers Steinmetz and Van Der Linden responded to the 911 call, knowing that Lattimore had made the call and was seeking assistance. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 11.) Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Officers Steinmetz and Van Der Linden had heard the recorded 911 audio of Michael threatening Lattimore. (Id. ¶ 12.)

         Shortly thereafter, Defendant Officers Stoiber, McPherson, and Klein arrived to assist Defendant Officers Steinmetz and Van Der Linden at the Residence. (Id. ¶ 13.) Defendant Officers Steinmetz, Van Der Linden, Stoiber, McPherson, and Klein (the “Responding Officers”) entered the Residence and interviewed the occupants therein. (Id. ¶ 14.) According to Plaintiffs, the Responding Officers knew the occupants at the Residence and had no authority to remove Lattimore, his nephew Steven, or Hutton-Lattimore from the Residence. (Id. ¶ 15.) As to Hutton-Lattimore, the Responding Officers found her in the kitchen on January 26, 2015, and also knew that at that time knew she had not committed a crime and that she was not a threat to the occupants of the Residence. (Id. ¶¶ 16-18.) Nonetheless, on January 28, 2015, Streamwood police officers arrested Hutton-Lattimore and charged her with home invasion. (Id. ¶ 31.)

         As to Lattimore, once the Responding Officers arrived on January 26, 2015, they seized Lattimore's lawfully owned gun and escorted him out of the Residence. (Id. ¶¶ 20-22.) Once outside the Residence, the Responding Officers searched Lattimore's car to recover his wallet and then towed the vehicle. (Id. ¶¶ 23-26.) The Responding Officers thereafter arrested Lattimore and charged him with unlawful use/possession of a weapon and home invasion despite Lattimore's valid firearm credentials and documents. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 28.) Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Officer Klein submitted a complaint for a search warrant to search Lattimore's property that stated Lattimore's concealed carry license and FOID cards had been revoked - although they were in fact valid. (Id. ¶¶ 29, 33.) Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Officers Gallagher, Barnes, and Zeigler assisted in the arrest, as well as investigated the home invasion charges against Lattimore and Hutton-Lattimore. (Id. ¶ 32.) On December 2, 2015, after a jury trial, the jury acquitted Lattimore of the home invasion charges. (Id. ¶ 34.) Lattimore's unlawful use of a weapon charges had been dropped before trial. (Id. ¶ 36.) The charges against Hutton-Lattimore were dropped on January 6, 2016. (Id. ¶ 35.)

         Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs bring the following claims: (1) a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim (Count I); (2) a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim (Count II); (3) a Fourteenth Amendment due process fabricated evidence claim (Count III); (4) a constitutional conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count IV); (5) an Illinois common law malicious prosecution claim (Count V); (6) an Illinois common law ...


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.