Rochester, Ill. (ECWd) –

“…could plausibly be viewed as evincing “sheer vindictiveness” and “substantial animus” towards Plaintiff …”

“…defendant harassed the plaintiff to drive him out of business for illegitimate purposes such as the mayor’s personal gain…”

In February 2024, Henry’s On Main, LLC., filed a federal civil rights lawsuit naming Rochester, Illinois, Mayor Joseph Suerdieck and the Village of Rochester as defendants in a Three-Count civil rights lawsuit alleging violations of Right of Free Speech, violations of the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances, and Denial of Equal Protection.

Henry’s is seeking in excess of $50,000 for each count.

Last week, the federal court DENIED Suerdieck’s Motion to Dismiss and ordered him and the village to answer the complaint within 14 days.

From reading the complaint, it alleges that village president wrongly denied a liquor license to a new business and business owner in the same location where the Village President’s son formerly held a business with a liquor license, and the president’s son failed to pay rent, utilities to the village, state taxes, and was evicted and forced to surrender his license for those failures.

From all appearance, the village president was attempting to prevent the new owner from obtaining a liquor license, which would have effectively reduced the rent collectable by the building’s owner, who had to forcibly evict the president’s son’s business for nonpayment of rent, etc.

From within the Denial:

• In Denying the “absolute immunity” claim by the president and village:  “. . . Suerdieck’ s decision could also be interpreted as being motivated by personal considerations given that Plaintiff’s principal, Mark Clemens, evicted the prior license holder, Surdieck’ s son, from the applicant address one week before Suerdieck denied the application. While addressing the Village Board meeting eight days before Suerdieck’ s decision, Clemens alleged that the process was “corrupt from the beginning.” Suerdieck later described Clemens’ s statements as “disparaging,” “rotten,” and not very factual.” Four months later, Suerdieck testified at the hearing that Clemens lacked the character to have a liquor license. When the allegations are viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds Suerdieck’ s act of denying Plaintiff’s application for a liquor license is analogous to the assertion in Brunson that defendant harassed the plaintiff to drive him out of business for illegitimate purposes such as the mayor’s personal gain.“
• and:  “Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims can plausibly be construed as alleging Suerdieck was solely motivated by personal animus or revenge in denying Plaintiff’s application for a liquor license. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied“

In Denying the Motion To Dismiss the Equal Protection Count:

• “Upon accepting the allegations of the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the Court finds Plaintiff has plausibly alleged Clemens was treated differently than any other potential applicant because of Clemens’s eviction of Plaintiff’s son and his public airing of grievances before the Village Board. This could plausibly be viewed as evincing “sheer vindictiveness” and “substantial animus” towards Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 3“

***

The Complaint alleges, among other things:

• President Suerdieck assigned legal counsel to collect the application (for liquor license) materials because the principal of Henry’s (Mark Clemens) was engaged in the eviction of the current license holder at the Applicant Address, the son of President Suerdieck
• On June 13, Ben Suerdieck, the Village President’s son, was evicted from the Applicant address, and ordered to pay nearly $8,000 in damages to the owner
• On June 20, 2023, President Suerdieck drafted a letter to Henry’s denying the application for the Class R-G liquor license
• Suerdieck denied the Application for a liquor license, claiming that a principal of Henry’s, Mark Clemens, did not possess the requisite ‘good character’ to be issued a license
• The State Liquor Commission unanimously reversed the denial of the license by Suerdieck, finding that the evidence presented by Suerdieck did not meet the standards for denial of license
• The denial of the application for a liquor license is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution, Article 1 Section 4 of the Illinois constitution and Illinois state law
• The denial of the application for a liquor license is a violation of Plaintiff’s right to petition his government for redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution
• Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff, because of a presentation to the Village Board
• The denial of the application for a liquor license is a violation of Plaintiff’s right to equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the of the U.S. constitution
• Defendants imposed different standards on Plaintiff, in the consideration of this application for a liquor license than these same defendants imposed on other applicants and holders of liquor licenses
• Defendants denied Plaintiff’s application for a liquor license based on some unsubstantiated conclusion that Clemens lacked the requisite ‘character’ to hold such license, while at the same time taking no action against the Village President’s son who failed to make tax payments to the state of Illinois, resulting in a suspension of his state license, failed to pay the Village for utilities supplied by the Village, and failed to pay rent to the landlord who owned the premises where he operated a bar