No. 23-366

Micah Uetricht, et al. v. Chicago Parking Meters, LLC

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2023-10-05
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: active-supervision antitrust antitrust-law damages monopoly monopoly-restriction municipal-contract parker-doctrine parker-v-brown sherman-act state-action-doctrine state-action-exemption
Key Terms:
Antitrust JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-10-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the City of Chicago 'actively supervise' a private monopoly like CPM's when CPM can only restrict the City's interference with its monopoly by requiring payment in damages for any loss in the monopoly profit expected to CPM under the 75-year Agreement?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2008, for $1.15 billion, the City of Chicago leased its 36,000 parking meters to a private equity firm, Chicago Parking Meters, LLC (“CPM”). The City agreed to double the meter rates, keep the meters in place, and give CPM the exclusive right to retain all the meter revenue for 75 years. The City agreed not to use its reserved powers to interfere with CPM’s monopoly profit without paying CPM in full for any lost profit in the 75-year period. CPM has already recovered the entire original investment, plus a sum between $500 million and one billion dollars, with 60 years still to run. Challenging the monopoly under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Plaintiffs, who are licensed drivers paying the higher rates, filed this action for injunctive relief only to bar CPM from continuing the Agreement for the remaining 60 years. The questions presented involve the state action exemption as set out in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), and are as follows: 1. Does the City of Chicago “actively supervise” a private monopoly like CPM’s when CPM can only restrict the City’s interference with its monopoly by requiring payment in damages for any loss in the monopoly profit expected to CPM under the 75-year Agreement? 2. When the City of Chicago has given CPM a 75-year private monopoly for all the revenue from its on-street parking system, does the li QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued State of Illinois itself and not the City of Chicago have to “actively supervise” CPM in order for CPM to claim an exemption under Parker? 3. Did the Seventh Circuit radically depart from this Court’s requirement that the State must clearly articulate and affirmatively express a policy in favor of this private monopoly of onstreet parking when it relied principally on an Illinois law for parking garages, lots, and other off-street facilities that makes no reference to on-street parking?

Docket Entries

2023-10-30
Petition DENIED.
2023-10-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023.
2023-10-06
Waiver of right of respondent Chicago Parking Meters, LLC to respond filed.
2023-10-03
2023-08-09
Application (23A108) granted by Justice Barrett extending the time to file until October 4, 2023.
2023-08-08
Response of Chicago Parking Meters, LLC to application submitted.
2023-07-24
Application (23A108) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 6, 2023 to October 4, 2023, submitted to Justice Barrett.

Attorneys

Chicago Parking Meters, LLC
Linda T. CoberlyWinston & Strawn, LLP, Respondent
Linda T. CoberlyWinston & Strawn, LLP, Respondent
Micah Uetricht, et al.
Thomas H. GeogheganDespres, Schwartz & Geoghegan, Ltd., Petitioner
Thomas H. GeogheganDespres, Schwartz & Geoghegan, Ltd., Petitioner