City of Chicago, Illinois v. Stubhub!, Incorporated

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 09-3432
CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STUBHUB!, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 08 C 3284—Wayne R. Andersen, Judge.
No. 10-1144
CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EBAY INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 08 C 3281—Blanche M. Manning, Judge.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 23, 2011

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Nos. 09-3432 & 10-1144
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and
KANNE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Illinois law permits the purchasers of
tickets to sporting contests, concerts, and similar events
to resell these tickets via auction sites on the Internet.
Chicago, which imposes an amusement tax on the
original ticket price, contends that the venues through
which tickets are resold must collect and remit an addi-
tional tax on the difference between the original price
and the resale price. In Chicago’s parallel suits against
eBay and StubHub!, federal district judges rejected
this contention. We heard the appeals in tandem and,
after rejecting StubHub!’s federal defenses, certified that
appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois for an authorita-
tive resolution of the issues under state law. 624 F.3d
363 (2010). Chicago’s suit against eBay presented a poten-
tially more difficult federal defense, and we withheld
decision of that appeal, pending the state court’s deci-
sion, because resolution of eBay’s additional federal
defense might become unnecessary.
The Supreme Court of Illinois has decided that Illinois
law does not allow Chicago to collect its tax from the
auction sites. Chicago v. StubHub, Inc., 2011 IL 111127
(Oct. 6, 2011). That decision supports the judgment
in both appeals.
Circuit Rule 52(b) requires the parties in certified cases
to file position statements within 21 days of the state
court’s decision. Chicago has asked us to extend the
time for its position statement. Its motion says that it
plans to ask the Supreme Court of Illinois for extra time
to file a petition for rehearing. Chicago has not informed

-- 2 of 3 --

Nos. 09-3432 & 10-1144 3
us why it needs extra time, how much it wants, or
why it believes that there is even a tiny chance that
the Supreme Court of Illinois will do a volte face on its
unanimous opinion. The request strikes us as pointless
stalling. This litigation has been pending long enough.
If the Supreme Court of Illinois grants rehearing,
Chicago can file appropriate post-judgment motions
in the federal litigation. The judgments of the district
court are affirmed.
11-23-11

-- 3 of 3 --