Cases Pending, edited by Clare J. Quish (pictured left) and Gretchen Sperry, has been updated to discuss the Illinois Supreme Court’s January Term that began Monday, January 11,
2016, with oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday, January 12, 2016, and Thursday,
January 14, 2016. A total of 5 cases will be heard – 2 civil and 3 criminal.
Here are the civil cases with the dates of oral argument:
Jeffrey W. Vaughn v. The City of Carbondale, No. 119181—January 14
Michael Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc., No. 119518—January 14
The
Court will hear two civil cases of interest this term: Richter v. Prairie
Farms Dairy, which involves res
judicata as it pertains to involuntary dismissal of claims, and
Vaughn v. City of Carbondale, which
involves the Public Security Employee Benefits Act. Below are abbreviated
summaries for these two cases. Summaries for these cases and others listed
above can be found in our Cases Pending
publication, accessible to ALA members on our website.
PROCEDURE – RES JUDICATA
No. 119518
Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.
The issue in this case is whether an order dismissing a
claim without prejudice under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the
“Code”) (735 ILCS 5/2-615) becomes a final adjudication on the merits that bars
any subsequent related litigation, where the dismissed claim is not refiled and
the remaining claims are voluntarily dismissed after the time allowed for
re-pleading expires.
Plaintiffs Michael and Denise Richter, doing business as
Rich-Lane Farms, filed a three-count complaint against Defendant Prairie Farms
Dairy, Inc., alleging various claims relating to consumer fraud and shareholder
disputes. The fraud claims were
dismissed under section 2-615 of the Code, with leave to replead within 30
days. Plaintiffs never refiled their fraud
claims and, instead, proceeded on their claim seeking shareholder
remedies. They subsequently voluntarily
dismissed their shareholder remedies claims under section 2-1009 of the Code. Plaintiffs refiled their action less than one
year later, again asserting claims for shareholder remedies and adding claims
for fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendant moved to dismiss the refiled case
under section 2-619 of the Code, arguing that the circuit court’s order
dismissing the fraud claims became a final adjudication on the merits after
Plaintiffs failed to refile those claims and then voluntarily dismissed their
remaining claims. According to Defendant, Plaintiffs’ refiled action was barred
by the doctrine of res judicata. The circuit court agreed with Defendant and
granted its motion to dismiss.
The Illinois Appellate Court reversed, holding that the
circuit court’s order dismissing the fraud claims under section 2-615 was not a
final judgment. The circuit court
provided “no indication that anything was ‘absolutely and finally’ settled”
when the fraud claims were dismissed; rather, by allowing Plaintiffs additional
time to file amended claims, the circuit court concluded that Plaintiffs could
cure their pleading defects. Because the
dismissal was not a final adjudication on the merits, it did not become a
final, appealable order on the entry of voluntary dismissal, and could not act
as a bar in a refiled case under the doctrine of res judicata.
In its petition for leave to appeal, Defendant argued that
the appellate court’s interpretation ignores the circuit court’s restrictions
on Plaintiffs’ ability to replead.
Defendant argued that when Plaintiffs failed to replead within the time
allowed, they lost the right to do so and the dismissal order became final.
Thus, Defendant argued, Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata following their voluntary
dismissal.
Appellate Court Opinion: 2015 IL App (4th) 140613, 34 N.E.3d
617. Pope, P.J., with Turner, J., and Steigmann, J., concurring.
PLA Allowed: September 30, 2015.
PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ACT
No. 119181
Vaughn v.
City of Carbondale
The issue
presented in this appeal is whether Plaintiff was entitled to a permanent
injunction requiring the City of Carbondale to provide him and his spouse with
lifetime health insurance benefits under the Public Safety Employee Benefits
Act (the “Act”) (820 ILCS 320/10).
Plaintiff, a
Carbondale police officer, was injured when he hit his head on his patrol car
as he responded to a non-emergency call from a dispatcher. Plaintiff completed his shift and then sought
medical attention. Plaintiff was removed
from duty due to his injury. Plaintiff
later applied for and received an in line of duty pension. The City of Carbondale also provided family
health insurance while Plaintiff received his pension. Plaintiff was then asked to submit to a
medical examination. He complied and was
found fit to return to duty as a police officer. The City of Carbondale then terminated his
pension. The decision was affirmed on
administrative review but later reversed by the Fifth District Appellate Court
which reinstated the pension based on a failure to provide Plaintiff due
process.
Plaintiff in
the meantime sought a permanent injunction against the City of Carbondale
requiring it to permanently provide him and his family with lifetime health
insurance benefits under the PSEBA. The
circuit court found that Plaintiff did not suffer a catastrophic injury and
dismissed the injunction complaint. The
Fifth District Appellate Court reversed and held that because Plaintiff was
injured when he was responding to a dispatcher’s call, which could have been an
emergency, he was entitled to benefits under the Act.
The City of
Carbondale argues in its petition for leave to appeal that Plaintiff did not
satisfy the criteria to qualify for benefits under the Act. Although the City acknowledged that while
Plaintiff’s injury may have been “catastrophic” under section 10(a) of the Act,
he was not injured while in fresh pursuit; was not responding to an emergency;
was not injured while responding to an unlawful act of another; or injured in
the investigation of a criminal act as expressly required under section 10(b)
of the Act. To the contrary, the City
argues that the Fifth District Appellate Court created a new basis not provided
for in the statute—that injuries sustained in responding to any call from a
dispatcher, even if not an emergency, satisfies the section 10(b) criteria
entitling an officer and his family to lifetime health insurance benefits.
The City also
argues that its ability to terminate benefits is not limited to a showing of
fraud in the initial procurement of benefits, as the Appellate Court held. The City instead contends that benefits may
be terminated if Plaintiff is no longer eligible for such benefits or the
benefits were improperly extended in the first instance.
Appellate Court
Opinion: 2015 IL App (5th) 140122.
Welch, J., with Cates, P.J., and Goldenhersh, J., concurring.
PLA
Allowed: September 30, 2015.
DISCLAIMER: The Appellate Lawyers Association does not provide legal services or legal advice. Discussions of legal principles and authority, including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, statutes, legislative enactments, court rules, case law, and common-law doctrines are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.
DISCLAIMER: The Appellate Lawyers Association does not provide legal services or legal advice. Discussions of legal principles and authority, including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, statutes, legislative enactments, court rules, case law, and common-law doctrines are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.
