Unity Ventures, an Illinois Partnership, LaSalle National Bank, as Trustee Under Trust No. 103331, and William Alter v. County of Lake, Village of Grayslake, Norman C. Geary, George Bell and Edwin M. Schroeder

Summary

The Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a dispute over the denial of sewage-service connections for a development in Lake County, Illinois. The court held that the plaintiffs’ equal protection, due process, and Sherman Act claims were not ripe because they had not obtained a final governmental decision, and it further indicated that the defendants’ conduct would be protected by the state-action doctrine.

Holdings

1. Land-use-related equal protection and substantive due process claims challenging denial of a sewer connection are not ripe until the plaintiff obtains a final, reviewable governmental decision on a formal application or proposal for the connection.
2. A plaintiff cannot establish futility merely by asserting that further administrative applications would be useless; at least one meaningful application or legitimate effort to follow administrative procedures is required.
3. A procedural due process claim challenging the adequacy of procedures for denying a sewer connection is premature until the plaintiff has used the available procedures and the governmental entity has made a final decision.
4. The Sherman Act claim was premature because defendants had not made a final decision on plaintiffs' sewer-connection application and therefore had not yet exercised the challenged contractual powers in a final, reviewable manner.
5. If the antitrust claim were ripe, the agreement allocating sewage treatment capacity would be immune from federal antitrust liability under the state-action doctrine because Illinois authorized local governmental cooperation in providing sewage treatment and anticompetitive effects were a foreseeable consequence of that authorization.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs' equal protection and substantive due process claims concerning denial of a sewer connection were ripe for adjudication without a final governmental decision on a formal sewer-connection application.
2. Whether plaintiffs' procedural due process claim was ripe before they used the available administrative procedures and obtained a final decision on the requested sewer connection.
3. Whether plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim was ripe before the governmental entities made a final decision on the sewer-connection request.
4. Whether defendants' agreement allocating sewage treatment capacity was protected by the state-action exemption from federal antitrust liability.
5. Whether defendants' cross-appeal from denial of their motion for a new trial should be reached.

Disposition

affirmed