TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Todd Lenzie, Interim Corporate Counsel
SUBJECT:
title
Ordinance Authorizing Approval and Execution of the Class Action Settlement Agreement in Musa et. al. v. City of Joliet, Will County Case 22 LA 334 Consolidated with 22 CH 196
end
BACKGROUND:
This matter concerns a class action complaint in which the Plaintiffs allege that the City of Joliet improperly adjudicated overweight and overlength vehicle violations through its administrative adjudication system rather than through the circuit court process required for certain traffic offenses under state law and the City’s own ordinances. The litigation challenges the City’s past enforcement practices and raises questions regarding the interaction between Joliet’s home rule authority, applicable provisions of the Illinois Vehicle Code, and local ordinances governing reporting and adjudication of traffic offenses.
Following arm's-length settlement negotiations, including pretrial-conference assistance by Judge Lynch, the Parties reached a proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release. The proposed settlement class includes persons against whom the City's administrative adjudication system imposed fines, penalties, other financial sanctions, judgments, or findings of liability for an overlength or overweight violation of a Joliet ordinance on or after January 1, 2017. The agreement states a total settlement value of $2,039,786.79. Of that amount, $1,711,472.73 is to be paid to the Class Settlement Administrator, less any amount paid for class notice and administration, and $328,314.06 consists of cancellation of covered outstanding debt. The remaining cash fund will be used for class notice and administration, pro rata distributions to eligible Class Members who paid covered fines or costs, service awards of up to $5,000 for each Class Representative, and court-approved attorneys' fees of up to 33% of the Net Settlement Fund, plus costs of up to $10,000. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval; upon final approval, the released claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The agreement expressly provides that it is not an admission or concession of liability or wrongdoing by the City.
Under article VII, section 6(a), of the Illinois Constitution, a municipality with a population of more than 25,000 is a home rule unit unless it elects by referendum not to be. Joliet is a home rule unit. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 6(a). The Constitution provides:
Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur debt.
Home rule powers and functions are construed liberally. A home rule unit may exercise powers pertaining to its government and affairs unless the Illinois Constitution or an express statutory limitation provides otherwise. Cammacho v. City of Joliet, 2024 IL 129263, ¶¶ 20-22. The General Assembly may limit a home rule power or provide for the State's exclusive exercise of that power, but such a limitation must be stated specifically. In the absence of a specific limitation or declaration of exclusive State authority, home rule units may exercise their powers concurrently with the State. Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, § 6(g)-(i), (m); Cammacho, 2024 IL 129263, ¶¶ 20-23.
Accordingly, the issues presented here require consideration of both any express State-law limitation and the scope of adjudicatory authority conferred by the City's own ordinances.
The overweight and overlength restrictions at issue arise under the Joliet Code of Ordinances. Section 19-21 provides that “it is unlawful to operate any vehicle in excess of twenty-four thousand (24,000) pounds (twelve (12) tons), or any vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than twenty-four thousand (24,000) pounds (12 tons), on any non-designated city road.” Section 19-19 provides that “[t]he maximum length of a second-division motor vehicle on any non-designated street shall be fifty-five (55) feet.”
The class claims concern the City's use of administrative adjudication for covered overweight and overlength violations. Section 3-5(d) of the Joliet Code provides that "a uniform traffic citation shall be issued in the case of a violation of a reportable offense of the Illinois Vehicle Code," and section 3-5(e) provides that "[a]ny traffic offense requiring reporting to the Secretary of State shall be returnable to the Will County Court House on the applicable return date."
Two statutory provisions frame whether an overweight or overlength violation, or a similar municipal ordinance violation, is reportable and how it may be adjudicated:
625 ILCS 5/6-204(a) ("When court to forward license and reports") establishes reporting duties for Vehicle Code offenses and similar offenses under municipal ordinances. Although subsection (a)(2) contains specified reporting exceptions, its final sentence provides that the reporting requirements apply to all violations listed in paragraphs (1) and (2), except parking violations, when the driver holds a commercial learner's permit (CLP) or commercial driver's license (CDL), regardless of the type of vehicle, or when any driver commits the violation in a commercial motor vehicle. Public Act 94-307 added this CDL and commercial-motor-vehicle reporting provision in 2005.
65 ILCS 5/1-2.1-2 defines a statutory "system of administrative adjudication" and excludes "(i) proceedings not within the statutory or the home rule authority of municipalities; and (ii) any offense under the Illinois Vehicle Code or a similar offense that is a traffic regulation governing the movement of vehicles and except for any reportable offense under Section 6-204 of the Illinois Vehicle Code." As Cammacho later clarified, however, that definition does not itself preempt a home rule municipality's constitutional authority to make administrative determinations under its ordinances.
Before Cammacho, two appellate decisions informed the legal landscape concerning municipal adjudication of traffic-related ordinance violations:
People ex rel. Ryan v. Village of Hanover Park, 311 Ill. App. 3d 515 (1st Dist. 1999). The court invalidated municipal "P-ticket" programs that allowed traffic offenders to pay settlement fees in lieu of circuit court adjudication, concluding that the programs conflicted with the uniform enforcement and reporting framework established by chapter 11 of the Illinois Vehicle Code and applicable Illinois Supreme Court rules.
Catom Trucking, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 2011 IL App (1st) 101146. The court interpreted section 1-2.1-2's exclusions as barring administrative adjudication of overweight-vehicle ordinance violations because they were similar traffic regulations governing the movement of vehicles. Catom also recognized the separate exclusion for reportable offenses under section 6-204. The opinion treated section 1-2.1-2 as determining the scope of a home rule municipality's adjudicatory authority, an interpretation the Illinois Supreme Court later rejected in Cammacho.
In Cammacho, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed (1) whether section 1-2.1-2 constitutionally preempted the City's home rule authority to administratively adjudicate violations of its ordinances and (2) whether the overweight and overlength violations before the Court were properly subject to administrative adjudication under the Joliet Code. The Court held that section 1-2.1-2 does not preempt the City's home rule authority and overruled Catom to the extent Catom treated that statutory definition as determining a home rule unit's power to administratively adjudicate ordinance violations. Cammacho, 2024 IL 129263, ¶¶ 31, 52-53.
The Court nevertheless concluded that section 3-5 of the Joliet Code directed traffic offenses requiring reporting to the Secretary of State to the circuit court. Because the ordinance violations before the Court were reportable, the Joliet Code did not confer authority on the City's hearing officer to adjudicate those violations administratively, and the administrative decisions were reversed. Id. ¶¶ 41-43, 50, 53.
The Court explained that section 6-204(a) requires reporting of Vehicle Code violations and similar municipal ordinance violations, other than parking violations, when committed by a CLP or CDL holder in any vehicle or by any driver operating a commercial motor vehicle. The Court further held that Joliet's weight and length ordinances were similar to the corresponding Vehicle Code provisions. Id. ¶¶ 47, 49-50.
The Public Service Committee will review this item.
CONCLUSION:
Cammacho preserves the City's favorable position that section 1-2.1-2 does not preempt Joliet's home rule authority to administratively adjudicate ordinance violations. At the same time, the decision establishes that section 3-5 of the Joliet Code required the reportable overweight and overlength violations before the Court to proceed in circuit court, creating material litigation risk concerning the City's historical administrative adjudication of comparable citations.
The proposed settlement resolves the released class claims arising from the City's administrative adjudication of covered overweight and overlength citations on or after January 1, 2017, while avoiding the uncertainty, burden, expense, and risk of continued litigation. Accordingly, staff recommends adoption of the ordinance authorizing execution of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and directing the City Manager and Corporation Counsel to take the actions necessary to obtain court approval and implement the settlement.
RECOMMENDATION:
recommendation
Based on the above, it is recommended that the Mayor and City Council approve an Ordinance Authorizing Approval and Execution of the Class Action Settlement Agreement in Musa et. al. v. City of Joliet, Will County Case 22 LA 334 Consolidated with 22 CH 196
end