By: Derek Hawkins//March 14, 2016//
By: Derek Hawkins//March 14, 2016//
7TH Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Vincent Rose v. Board of Election Commissioners For the City of Chicago, et al
Case No.: 15-1931
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and MANION and ROVNER, Cir‐ cuit Judges.
Suit stemming from Defendant-respondent failure to place appellant’s name on ballot for local election dismissed due to issue preclusion
“Finally, Rose’s state and federal actions are identical for claim‐preclusion purposes. In Illinois as elsewhere, separate claims are considered the same cause of action if “‘they arise from a single group of operative facts, regardless of whether they assert different theories of relief.’” Chicago Title Land Trust Co. v. Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Sales, 664 F.3d 1075, 1079–80 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 703 N.E.2d 883, 893 (Ill. 1998)). See also Arlin Golf, LLC v. Vill. of Arlington Heights, 631 F.3d 818, 821 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal marks omitted) (“The transactional test permits claims to be considered part of the same cause of action even if there is not a substantial overlap of evidence, so long as they arise from the same transaction.”). In both his state and federal action, Rose challenged the Illinois statute prescribing the four‐percent signature requirement for aldermanic elections. He also challenged the Board’s decision, based on the four‐percent requirement, not to print his name on the ballot for the February 2015 election for Chicago’s 7th Ward. Both the state and federal actions are clearly predicated on the same set of operative facts and are therefore the same cause of action under Illinois law.
Affirmed