Whether false information is a rational basis for terminating a development agreement

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether false information, which a city official knows to be false, is a “rational basis” for terminating a preliminary agreement allocating city funds to a private developer for the redevelopment of an abandoned Hospital into a hotel with commercial business space; 2. Whether the Seventh Circuit should have remanded the instant case to the district court when the Seventh Circuit’s opinion does not expressly affirm the dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint “with prejudice,” and when the Seventh Circuit’s opinion strongly indicates that amending the complaint would be neither futile nor unwarranted; 3. Whether the Plaintiff forfeited its “close party theory” on appeal, when the district court, for the first time in its final order and opinion, raised such a theory as a potential cure for the Plaintiffs allegedly defective First Amendment Retaliation claim. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (Forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right) (emphasis added); 4. Whether the Plaintiff otherwise sufficiently pled plausible claims for First Amendment Retaliation, Violation of Due Process and Violation of Equal Protection; 5. In the alternative, whether it was certain from the face of the complaint that granting the Plaintiff leave to amend its Federal claims would be futile or otherwise unwarranted as to justify the district court’s dismissal of the Plaintiff's Federal claims with prejudice.