August 1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

several questions important to preservation but rarely consid- ered, such as the ability of a preservation commission to retain its own witnesses in considering an economic hard- ship claim and the distinction between an owner's willing- ness to maintain historic prop- erty and his or her financial ability to do so. Perhaps more significantly, however, the circuit court adapted an extremely narrow interpretation of federal court removal jurisdiction over court actions that contain a mix of state and federal claims, ruling that if "even one claim" in such an action is in the nature of an "admin- istrative review," the action may not be removed to federal court. On April 14, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a re- quest by the City of Chicago to review the case. [Interna- tional College of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, 91 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. granted, 117 S.Ct. 1424 (1997)(No. 96- 910).] This case involves a challenge by the international College of Surgeons (the College) of the decision of the Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectur- al Landmarks (the Landmarks Com- mission), to deny the College's application to demolish two histor- ic mansions designated as historic landmarks pursuant to the Seven Houses Lake Shore Drive District Ordinance. The College had sought to demolish the buildings, located on Lake Shore Drive, to construct a forty-one story, mixed-use condo- minium tower on the site. For de- tailed discussion on the facts sur- rounding this case, see "Federal District Court Upholds Denial of Permit to Demolish Chicago Land- marks in Broad -Based Lawsuit," 14 PLR 1087 (May 1995). The College filed three separate lawsuits against the city in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The first lawsuit sought judicial review of the Landmarks Commission's decision to deny its application for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the historic buildings, alleging both state and federal law claims. The second lawsuit, in turn, sought judicial review of the Commission's decision to deny the owners' request for an exception on economic hardship grounds, also alleging both state and federal law claims. In its third lawsuit against the City, the College challenged the City Council's rejection of its application for permits under Chi- cago's "Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance." The College's three lawsuits against the City were removed by the City of Chicago to federal dis- trict court and then consolidated into a single lawsuit. The College's action under the City's Lakefront Protection Ordinance was stayed pending the outcome of its two other claims. In an order dated January 10, 1992, the court granted in part and denied in part the City's motion to dismiss the College's claims against the City under the City's landmark ordinance. See International College of Surgeons 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). This provision v. City of Chicago, Nos. 91 C 1587 states in relevant part: and 91 C 5564 (N.D. W. Jan. 10, 1992)[11 PLR 1106 (Jan. 1992)]. Except as otherwise provided by Act The College, thereafter, filed an of Congress, any civil action brought amended "Consolidated Complaint in a State court of which the district for Administrative Review," once courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed again alleging both federal and state by the defendant or the defendants, to law claims. On December 30, 1994, the district court of the United States the federal district court entered for the district and division embrac- summary judgment in favor of the ing the place where such action is City on all claims, affirming both pending. the decision of the Landmarks Commission to deny the demoli- Emphasis added. Under the Seventh tion permits and the City's decision Circuit's interpretation of this pro - to deny relief on economic hardship vision, removal is appropriate only grounds. See Interna- if all of the claims tional College ofA state action seek - before the court in - Surgeons v. City of volve "civil actions." Ing judicial review Chicago, No. 91 C In other words, a 1587 (N.D. 111. Dec. Of a state adminis- -state action seeking 30, 1994)[14 PLR tratiVe agency's de -'—,'judicial review of a 1087 (May 1995)]. tennination is not - ,. state administrative The . court also dis• e, i f the agency's determina removable, - .• missed as moot the tion is not remov- court Would be re- College's remaining able, if the court claim under the Chi- quired to perforin would be required to cago Lakefront Pro- an "appellate" func- perform an "appel- tection Ordinance,rr late" function rather tion rather than de but granted leave to than "de nova" re - reinstate the claim if novo review. view. the court's decisions In reaching its on the two other claims should be determination on this issue, the reversed. Seventh Circuit initially looked to The U.S. Court of Appeals nev- the U.S. Supreme Court for guid- er reached the merits of the parties' ance. The Seventh Circuit observed arguments on appeal. Rather, the that in two decisions, Chicago, Seventh Circuit determined that Rock Island & Pacific Railroad v. the district court lacked subject Stude, 346 U.S. 5 74 (1954), and matter jurisdiction and therefore Horton v. Liberty Mutual Insur- reversed the district court's deci- ance Co., 367 U.S. 348 (1961), the sion with instructions to remand Supreme Court determined that the matter to the Cook County removal jurisdiction over state Circuit Court. court actions was appropriate be - r The Court!s Decision cause de novo review of a state administrative agency decision was l Removal of state court actions involved. Although the Supreme to federal court is authorized under Court did not address the question