Chicago United Industries, Ltd. v. City of Chicago

Chicago United Industries, Ltd. (CUI) (plaintiff) had contracts with the City of Chicago (defendant) to provide certain goods. At one point, the city believed that CUI had fraudulently billed the city. After notifying CUI, the city canceled CUI’s existing contracts and barred further contracts between CUI and the city (“debarment”) for three years. CUI sued the city for failing to provide CUI with an administrative hearing, claimed that CUI had lost profits, and sought injunctive relief to stop the cancellation and debarment. On August 31, the district court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the cancellation and debarment. The 10-day order was extended for another 10 days. During the extension period, the city withdrew its cancellation of CUI’s contracts and rescinded the debarment. Because the city’s actions were done “without prejudice,” the court declined to dismiss CUI’s action on grounds of mootness. On September 22, the court extended the TRO to October 31 with the parties’ consent. The parties further agreed to a November hearing date on CUI’s motion for preliminary injunction, and the court extended the TRO again to November 28 with the parties’ consent. Before the hearing on preliminary injunction could occur, though, the court modified the TRO pursuant to CUI’s request. The modified TRO restrained the city from awarding contracts to any company other than CUI if CUI was the lowest responsive bidder. The city objected to the modified TRO and filed an appeal on October 24, which was at least 20 days after the modified TRO had been issued. The Seventh Circuit was required to determine the TRO’s appealability and whether the case had become moot.