DMS Pharmaceutical Group v. County of Cook
Case Date: 12/29/2003
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-02-1347, 1-02-3436
cons. Rel
|
Nos. 1-02-1347 & 1-02-3436
PRESIDING JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, DMS Pharmaceutical Group, Inc., filed a three-count complaintfor declaratory and injunctive relief, a motion for a temporary restrainingorder and a preliminary injunction against defendant, the County of Cook (theCounty). Plaintiff alleged that the County violated state law and its owncompetitive bidding ordinance by using requests for information (RFI) andrequests for proposals (RFP) to award a contract to supply prescriptionmedication and other pharmaceuticals to the County. The County filed a motionto dismiss plaintiff's complaint arguing that it was not subject to thecompetitive bidding laws due to its status as a home rule entity under theIllinois Constitution and that the contract at issue was not adapted tocompetitive bidding. The trial court granted the County's motion to dismiss on count I andplaintiff voluntarily dismissed counts II and III against the County. Plaintiff filed this timely appeal (No. 1-02-1347) arguing that the trialcourt erred by dismissing count I and urging this court to reverse the trialcourt and remand this case for further proceedings. Plaintiff subsequently brought a separate suit for declaratory andinjunctive relief in the circuit court against the County claiming that theCounty's Board of Commissioners (the Board) improperly delegated its power toexpend taxpayer funds for the purchase of pharmaceuticals to the County'scomptroller. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and thetrial court entered judgment on the merits in favor of the County and againstplaintiff. Plaintiff filed a subsequent timely appeal (No. 1-02-3436) alleging thatthe trial court erred by not entering declaratory and injunctive reliefagainst the County and by impermissibly depriving it of any remedy. Plaintiffalso argues that the trial court erred by not finding that the Countyunconstitutionally delegated its power to the comptroller and effectuated anunconstitutional change of government. This court, sua sponte, moved to consolidate the two cases because eachappeal is based on related actions of the County. For the reasons that followwe affirm the judgment of the trial court in appeal numbers 1-02-1347 and 1-02-3436. BACKGROUND Appeal Number 1-02-1347 Plaintiff brought the action referenced in appeal number 1-02-1347against the County challenging its methods for selecting a prime vendor tosupply its pharmaceutical needs. In 1999, a task force appointed by the CookCounty Bureau of Health Services (CCBHS) determined that the County shouldpursue a prime-vendor contract for the purchase of its prescriptionmedications. The CCBHS is responsible for hospital facilities operated by theCounty, and it was estimated that a prime-vendor contract would cost theCounty approximately $220 million over a three-year period. These facilitiesinclude Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Oak Forest Hospital of Cook County,Provident Hospital of Cook County, Cermak Health Services of Cook County, theAmbulatory and Community Health Network of Cook County, the C.O.R.E. Centerand the Cook County department of health. Plaintiff had been a vendor ofpharmaceuticals to the County for about five years prior to the RFP. Count I of plaintiff's complaint(1) contends that section 5-36006 of theIllinois Counties Code (55 ILCS 5/5-36006 (West 2000)) (the Code) and section10-18 of the Cook County Appropriations and Bidding Ordinance (the Ordinance)(Cook County Appropriations and Bidding Ordinance |
||||