Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Ittersagen brought a medical malpractice action against Advocate Medical and Dr. Thakadiyil, alleging that the defendants negligently failed to diagnose him with sepsis and treat him appropriately. A jury was sworn. More than halfway through the trial, the court received a note from a juror, who reported that he had a business relationship with “the Advocate Health Care System Endowment.” The juror, a partner in a company that handles investments, said he believed the endowment was affiliated with but separate from Advocate Medical. He explained that his connection to Advocate Medical was so attenuated that he forgot to mention it during jury selection. The juror insisted that the outcome of the trial would not affect him financially and that he could remain fair and impartial. The trial court denied Ittersagen’s request to remove the juror for actual bias or implied bias and to replace him with an alternate juror. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting an argument that the juror’s business relationship with the endowment created a presumption of bias that cannot be rebutted by claims of impartiality. The court noted the lack of evidence of the affiliation between the endowment and Advocate. The juror did not owe Advocate a fiduciary duty and did not have any other direct relationship with the defendants that would create a presumption of juror bias as a matter of law. View "Ittersagen v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp." on Justia Law

In 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court held that, in committing a respondent under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (725 ILCS 205/0.01), the circuit court must make an explicit finding that the respondent is substantially probable to commit sex offenses in the future if not confined. The Act was subsequently amended to include the required element of a substantial probability to reoffend within the statutory definition of a sexually dangerous person.In 1973, Snapp pleaded guilty to three counts of indecent liberties with a child. In 1992, he pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse. In 1997, after Snappwas again charged with aggravated criminal sexual abuse, the state filed a petition and obtained his commitment under the Act. In 2004 and 2007, Snapp filed applications for recovery, seeking release from his civil commitment. Both of those applications were denied. In 2010, Snapp filed another application for recovery. A bench trial was held in 2018, The court denied Snapp’s petition, finding he was “still a sexually dangerous person and in need of confinement.” The appellate court vacated, finding that precedent required an express finding of a substantial probability to reoffend.The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the trial court decision. The General Assembly eliminated the requirement of a separate explicit finding by the circuit court that the respondent is substantially probable to reoffend if not confined. View "In re Commitment of Snapp" on Justia Law

In November 2014, Eighner filed a personal injury complaint (14-L-11428) concerning a November 2012 collision. Eighner paid the filing fee and caused summons to be issued. As the trial approached, Eighner decided to undergo surgery. In May 2017, the court granted a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under 735 ILCS 5/2- 1009(a), with leave to reinstate within one year. In April 2018, Eighner ’s counsel electronically filed a document under the number, 14-L11428, titled “Eighner ’s Notice of Refiling Complaint Being Reinstated.” Eighner paid no filing fee and no summons issued. Eighner ’s counsel received file-stamped copies of the documents, and a “Notice of Electronic Filing,” from the clerk. Defense counsel informed Eighner ’s counsel that he was unable to find the reinstated case on the court website. In October 2018, Eighner’s counsel notified defense counsel that he had tried to file the matter under a different number and had been advised by the clerk’s office to keep the same number. Eighner ’s counsel, unsuccessful in filing a motion under that number, filed a new complaint, number 18-L-11146, and paid a filing fee; a new summons was issued.The defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the new lawsuit as untimely having been filed five months after the expiration of the one-year period. The appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court concluded that section 13-217 did not permit Eighner to file the previously dismissed action under its original case number, citing the phrase “may commence a new action.” Case 18-L-11146 was untimely and Eighner ’s April 2018 filing was not a new action. View "Eighner v. Tiernan" on Justia Law

The real estate taxes on Brown’s mineral rights were not paid. In 2013, the Hamilton County collector sold the delinquent taxes. Castleman extended the taxes’ redemption date to October 10, 2015, and filed a petition for a tax deed on June 22, 2015. An October 2015 order under Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/22-40(a)) directed the clerk to issue a tax deed to Castleman. Castleman assigned the tax sale certificate to Groome. Brown sold the mineral rights to SI by quitclaim deed. In November 2015, SI moved to vacate the section 22-40(a) order. The trial court dismissed for lack of standing. Meanwhile, Groome recorded a tax deed in February 2016. In June 2017, SI sought a writ of mandamus against the Hamilton County clerk who conceded that the 2016 Groome deed did not comport with the underlying section 22-40(a) order, which directed the deed to be issued to Castleman. The court granted SI’s requests. Castleman and Groome were not parties in the mandamus proceedings.The appellate court found the motion to vacate the section 22-40(a) order "a nullity.” The Hamilton County clerk issued Castleman a “Corrective Tax Deed” in October 2017, in compliance with the original section 22-40(a) order. SI filed a “Section 22-85 Motion to Void Tax Deed” and a “[Section] 2-1401/22-45 Petition to Vacate the October 2015 Order Directing Issuance of Tax Deed.” The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of both counts.The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. A tax deed issued and was recorded within the mandatory time limit. The deed’s failure to name the proper party created a conflict between the deed and the section 22-40(a) order. While timely filing may result in the tax deed becoming “absolutely void,” 35 ILCS 200/22-85, the conflict with the order does not. The court’s mandamus order is properly viewed as reforming and correcting the 2016 tax deed to comport with the section 22-40(a) order. View "In re Application for a Tax Deed" on Justia Law

In filing mortgage foreclosure cases, the plaintiffs each paid a $50 “add on” filing fee under section 15-1504.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of section 15-1504.1 and of sections 7.30 and 7.31 of the Illinois Housing Development Act, 20 ILCS 3805/7.30, 7.31, which created foreclosure prevention and property rehabilitation programs funded by the fee.The trial court, following a remand, held that the fee violated the equal protection, due process, and uniformity clauses of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the fee violates the constitutional right to obtain justice freely. The $50 filing charge established under section 15-1504.1, although called a “fee,” is, in fact, a litigation tax; it has no direct relation to expenses of a petitioner’s litigation and no relation to the services rendered. The court determined that the plaintiffs paid the fee under duress; the voluntary payment doctrine did not apply. View "Walker v. Chasteen" on Justia Law

Municipal filed a mortgage foreclosure complaint against Moriarty in Kankakee County and had a summons issued. Leggott, a registered detective, served Moriarty at Rush Hospital in Chicago. Municipal had not moved for the appointment of a process server. Moriarty never filed an answer. The circuit court entered a judgment for foreclosure and sale, finding that Moriarty was personally served with process and was in default and that service of process was properly made. Municipal, the successful bidder at a sheriff’s sale, moved for confirmation of the foreclosure sale. Moriarty filed his appearance pro se, stating that he had not been aware of the sale. He had been in a nursing home and did not receive notice. The circuit court stated that Municipal had no obligation to give him notice of the sale and granted the motion for confirmation. Moriarty artued that the circuit court was without personal jurisdiction to enter the default judgment.The circuit court found and the appellate court affirmed that Leggott was not required to be specially appointed. Code of Civil Procedure section 202 provides: Process shall be served by a sheriff, or … by a coroner. ... In counties with a population of less than 2,000,000, process may be served, without special appointment, by a person who is licensed or registered as a private detective.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. Section 2-202 is concerned with where process is served, not about where the complaint is filed. In counties with a population of less than 2 million--all Illinois counties other than Cook County--process may be served, without special appointment, by a private detective. For a private detective to serve process on a defendant in Cook County, he must be specially appointed by the court. View "Municipal Trust and Savings Bank v. Moriarty" on Justia Law

Diana initiated divorce proceedings from Gregory in 2007. A final judgment dissolving the marriage and allocating marital property was entered in 2009 and was affirmed in 2012. Both parties filed post-decree petitions. Diana appealed a series of orders, arguing as a threshold issue that the court erred in denying her motion for substitution of judge as of right. The appellate court (Crecos II) agreed that the trial court erred in denying Diana’s motion and that subsequent orders were “void.” In 2016, Diana filed petitions under 750 ILCS 5/508(a)(3) for attorney fees and costs incurred in both appeals. In 2018, the trial court ordered Gregory to pay Diana’s attorney fees: $32,952.50 for the Crecos I appeal and $89,465.50 for the Crecos II appeal.The appellate court found that the 2018 order was not final and appealable; the order awarded interim attorney fees under section 501(c-1), which are temporary in nature and subject to adjustment and inextricably intertwined with the property issues that remained partially unresolved. The claim for attorney fees was not a separable claim for purposes of appeal.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The 2018 fee award was a final order on a post-dissolution petition. In entering the order, the trial court included Rule 304(a) language. The appellate court had jurisdiction over Gregory’s appeal of that order. View "In re Marriage of Crecos" on Justia Law

Tillman filed a petition for leave to file a taxpayer action under 735 ILCS 5/11-303, to enjoin the disbursement of public funds, alleging that certain general obligation bonds issued by the state in 2003 and 2017 were unconstitutional. He claimed the bonds violated article IX, section 9(b), of the Illinois Constitution on the ground that they were not issued for qualifying “specific purposes,” which, he argued, refers exclusively to “specific projects in the nature of capital improvements, such as roads, buildings, and bridges.” The 2003 “State pension funding” law authorized $10 billion in bonds to be issued “for the purpose of making contributions to the designated retirement systems.” The 2017 law authorized “Income Tax Proceed Bonds,” ($6 billion) “for the purpose of paying vouchers incurred by the State prior to July 1, 2017.”The circuit court denied the petition. The appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the judgment of the circuit court. the necessary elements for laches have been met in this case: “lack of due diligence by the party asserting the claim” and “prejudice to the opposing party.” There is no reasonable ground under section 11-303 of the Code for filing the petitioner’s proposed complaint View "Tillman v. Pritzker" on Justia Law

In 2013, Palos sued, alleging Humana underpaid for medical services that Palos provided to members of Humana health insurance plans. For two years, the parties filed numerous motions to compel and other “emergency” discovery motions. Judge Tailor appointed retired judge Sullivan to serve as a discovery master. In 2017, Judge Sullivan sent a letter with certain recommendations to Judge Tailor and counsel. At a hearing the next day, Judge Shelley began presiding over the case. Palos contended that the court lacked the authority to appoint a special master or mediator to oversee discovery. Judge Shelley saw no “need to deviate from the procedure” that Judge Tailor had established. Palos filed a memorandum in support of its motion to strike the discovery master and an objection to Judge Sullivan’s report.Palos subsequently moved for substitution of judge as a matter of right, 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2)(i), noting that the trial court had not made any substantial ruling. The court denied the motion, citing the “testing the waters” exception; ” such a motion “is considered untimely when the party moving for a substitution of judge has discussed issues with the judge, who has indicated a position on a particular point.” Discovery proceeded, with discovery sanctions and spoliation. A jury found in favor of Humana. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings.The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The “test the waters” doctrine is not a valid basis on which to deny a party’s motion for substitution of judge as of right; the doctrine conflicts with the plain language of the statute. View "Palos Community Hospital v. Humana Insurance Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism’s “Innocence Project” sought to exonerate Porter for two 1982 murders. Ciolino, a private investigator working with the Project, obtained a videotaped confession from Simon. Porter’s conviction was vacated. Simon pleaded guilty to the murders and was sentenced to 37 years in prison. Porter’s exoneration is regarded as the impetus for the Illinois death penalty moratorium. The tactics Ciolino used to obtain Simon’s confession came under scrutiny. It was alleged that Ciolino promised Simon that he would secure an attorney, Rimland, to represent him. Rimland shared office space with Ciolino and did not challenge Simon’s confession or present other evidence to the court. Ekl began representing Simon and filed a successive post-conviction petition asserting actual innocence. Two witnesses recanted their statements, indicating that those statements were induced by promises made by the Project. The circuit court vacated Simon’s convictions after Simon had served 15 years in prison. In 2015, Crawford published a book, Justice Perverted: How the Innocence Project … Sent an Innocent Man to Prison, which inspired the documentary at issue—Murder in the Park, in which Ekl allegedly made defamatory statements concerning Ciolino. Ciolino’s suit, alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy, was dismissed as barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Except as against one defendant, the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the reinstatement of the claims against Ekl. Because the screenings of the documentary each constituted a separate publication of the allegedly defamatory material, the single-publication rule does not apply. Following the documentary's Chicago screening, Ciolino timely filed his complaint. View "Ciolino v. Simon" on Justia Law