Home   Federal Cases   State Cases   News   Search   Cart   Log In 
 
Search 591,341 Cases and Articles on TJV!
 
Illinois State Categories







Jordan v Bangloria

Case No. 1-10-3506 (IL Dist. 1 App., Dec. 30, 2011)

This appeal arises from a September 2, 2010 order entered by the circuit court of Cook County that debarred the defendant's rejection of an arbitration award, assessed attorney fees under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 91(b) (eff. June 1, 1993) for the defendant's failure to participate in the arbitration in good faith, and assessed additional attorney fees under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) for frivolous objections to the plaintiff's request to admit facts. The defendant filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's ruling. The trial court denied the defendant's motion to reconsider. On appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in entering judgment on the arbitration award because the court did not give 60 days' written notice of the arbitration hearing; (2) the trial court erred in debarring his rejection of the arbitration award and assessing attorney fees for failure to participate in the arbitration in good faith; and (3) the trial court erred in assessing sanctions for his responses and objections to the plaintiff's request to admit. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.

BACKGROUND



On January 14, 2010, plaintiff-appellee Sean Jordan (Sean) filed a personal injury and property damage lawsuit in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant-appellant Hasib Bangloria (Hasib), as a result of an automobile accident that occurred on January 16, 2009. On January 27, 2010 Parrillo, Weiss & O'Halloran (defense counsel), filed their appearance and a jury demand on behalf of Hasib. Around February 4, 2010, Sean served Hasib, through Parrillo, Weiss & O'Halloran, with a request to admit facts. On March 2, 2010, Hasib served Sean with written objections to the request to admit. On March 30, 2010, the trial court entered an order closing discovery as of April 30, 2010, and transferred the case to the mandatory arbitration calendar. On April 9, 2010, Sean filed a motion requesting the trial court to overrule Hasib's objections to his request to admit. On May 3, 2010, Sean served Parrillo, Weiss & O'Halloran with Supreme Court Rule 90 documents, relating to the conduct of the mandatory arbitration hearing. A June 2, 2010 order overruled Hasib's objections, ordered Hasib to respond, and indicated that an arbitration hearing set for June 9, 2010 would stand. Prior to the June 2, 2010, order, there is nothing in the record that would indicate Hasib received any notice of the arbitration hearing date. In a separate order that day, Hasib was ordered to appear for a deposition prior to June 9, 2010. The order further indicated that the arbitration hearing was set for June 9, 2010. At that time, the plaintiff's attorneys were advised that the defense firm, Parrillo, Weiss & O'Halloran, had first located Hasib within the "last few days."

Hasib never appeared for his deposition, nor did he appear for the arbitration hearing in response to Sean’s notice to appear. On June 9, 2010, an arbitration hearing was held and defense counsel was present. An award of damages was entered in favor of Sean and against Hasib in the amount of $5,000 with no costs. The arbitrators did not make a finding that Hasib and defense counsel failed to participate in good faith. On June 23, 2010, Hasib filed a rejection of the award. On July 21, 2010, Sean filed a motion to "quash rejection of arbitration award." The motion also sought the assessment of attorney fees against defense counsel for bad faith in failing to produce Hasib at the arbitration hearing pursuant to Sean's notice to produce, for Hasib’s failure to appear for the deposition, and for Hasib's frivolous objections to Sean’s request to admit. Sean also filed a separate motion for assessment of attorney fees under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, claiming that Hasib’s objections to the request to admit were frivolous. On September 2, 2010, the trial court granted Sean’s motion to bar the rejection of the arbitration award, entered judgment on the award, and assessed the sum of $3,375 for attorney fees against Hasib and defense counsel. The trial court found that defense counsel did not participate in good faith "in connection with and at the arbitration hearing, prior thereto, and thereafter." The trial court also assessed $3,175 in attorney fees under Supreme Court Rule 137 against defense counsel only, finding that the objections to Sean’s request to admit were "frivolous."
 

 

Judge(s): Joy V. Cunningham
Jurisdiction: Illinois Court of Appeals, First District
Related Categories: ADR , Torts
 
Trial Court Judge(s)
Roger Fein

 
Court of Appeals Judge(s)
Maureen Connors
Joy Cunningham
Patrick Quinn

 

CUSTOM EMAIL ALERTS!

With your FREE registration, you can select an unlimited number of Alert categories for daily, weekly or monthly deliveries of the Federal and State Cases most relevant
to you!

Click Here to sign up.

 



Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
bangloria (hasib), as a result of an automobile accident that occurred on january 16, 2009. on notice of the scheduled arbitration other than the june 2, 2010 order. it has long been the law in ¶ 19 sean argues that participating in good faith covers more than the arbitration hearing. while response to sean's notice to appear. on june 9, 2010, an arbitration hearing was held and defense postjudgment motion is filed, within 30 days of the ruling on the affidavit was from cook countyarbitration administrator kimberlyatz o'brien, which stated that ¶ 1 this appeal arises from a september 2, 2010 order entered by the circuit court of cook for court and arbitration hearings. once hasib and defense counsel were made aware of the under supreme court rule 88, when defense counsel has shortened notice and does nothing about the same civil action. motions brought pursuant to this rule must be sean attempted to obtain an admission from hasib that a property damage estimate was prepared on is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the had not received proper notice. defense counsel knew the matter was placed on the mandatory behalf of hasib and was the reasonable expense of the necessary repairs of the damage to sean's interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause the arbitration award on the basis of his conduct before the arbitration hearing was an abuse of awarding sean attorney fees of $3,175. therefore, we hold that the trial court properly assessed supreme court rule is reviewed de novo. paul h. schwendener, inc. v. larrabee commons partners, it. we hold that defense counsel had a professional responsibility to be on top of scheduled dates with our illinois supreme court's decision holding that only orders entered by a court lacking opinions of law. it merely requested a verification that hasib's insurance company had estimated 338 ill. app. 3d 19, 28, 787 n.e.2d 192, 200 (2003). de novo consideration means we perform the and assessed the sum of $3,375 for attorney fees against hasib and defense counsel. the trial court 1-10-3506 defense counsel filed an amended notice of appeal. opinions and fails to properly authenticate and lay a proper 1-10-3506 hearing date renders a judgment on an arbitration award voidable. id. at 125-26, 777 n.e.2d at 457. constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading, motion 4. that the difference between the fair market value of sean's vehicle imposed either in the judgment order itself or in a separate written foundation." personal or subject matter jurisdiction are void. "both illinois appellate and supreme court case 1-10-3506 dates for filings and appearances in court or in connection with arbitration hearings." on november law have consistently held that a judgment or order is void [only] where it is entered by a court or reversed, finding that defense counsel failed to show due diligence because the law firm waited 2˝ vehicle arising from the accident with defendant. for failure to participate in the arbitration in good faith; and (3) the trial court erred in assessing 3 occurs outside of the arbitration hearing itself. here, the trial court imposed sanctions against hasib ¶ 8 the parties disagree on what standard of review should be utilized by this court. generally, present. there was no finding by the arbitrators that hasib or defense counsel failed to participate and his objections thereto are found to be without merit, and baseless, and unsupported by any case court rule 137 states: due diligence, it does involve the conduct of defense counsel representing hasib. defense counsel attorney fees against defense counsel for the responses and objections to sean's request to admit. opinion in good faith. defense counsel never filed a motion before the trial court to continue the arbitration (eff. feb. 1, 1994) for frivolous objections to the plaintiff's request to admit facts. the defendant 7 county that debarred the defendant's rejection of an arbitration award, assessed attorney fees under extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not in the absence of any party who, after due notice, fails to be present." illinois supreme court rule 91(b) (eff. june 1, 1993) for the defendant's failure to participate in the sanctions for his responses and objections to the plaintiff's request to admit. for the following pleading, motion, or other paper is not signed, it shall be stricken not true facts. furthermore, said request is in violation of supreme hasib's response was as follows: attorney fees under supreme court rule 137 against defense counsel for frivolous objections to arbitration in good faith,andassessedadditional attorneyfeesunderillinois supremecourt rule 137 vehicle caused by hasib's negligence. sean requested hasib to make the following admissions: notice and they did not appear at the scheduled arbitration date. juszczyk, 334 ill. app. 3d at 123, in court in this case on june 2, 2010, that the court stated the arbitration date would stand, and that 13 court ruled that "defendant's blanket declination to respond substantively to the request to admit (parrillo, weiss & o'halloran, ) honorable and cannot be argued for the first time on appeal). defense counsel is an experienced lawyer who the trial court's finding as long as the correct ruling is supported by the record. legion insurance ) ¶ 4 hasib never appeared for his deposition, nor did he appear for the arbitration hearing in ¶ 5 on september 29, 2010, hasib filed a motion to reconsider supported bytwo affidavits. one mr. harris did not then realize that defense counsel had not been notified of the arbitration hearing. co. v. empire fire & marine insurance co., 354 ill. app. 3d 699, 703, 822 n.e.2d 1, 5 (2004). or accompanied by affidavit. the signature of an attorney or party plaintiff-appellee, ) cook county. 3. that the certified estimate attached as exhibit 'a' sets forth the (1995)). however, arguments and objections that were not made in the trial court cannot be made ) well grounded in fact, [nor are they] warranted by existing law or a good­faith argument for the good faith, it may in its discretion impose sanctions. smith v. gleash, 325 ill. app. 3d 79, 83, 757 represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of ¶ 18 rule 219(c) provides that the trial court may award as sanctions the "reasonable expenses ¶ 16 when the trial court finds that a party has failed to participate in the arbitration hearing in reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of cook county. hereto as exhibit 'a' was prepared for apollo casualty insurance has been filed, and no violation or alleged violation of this rule shall meaningful participation in the arbitration hearing. see martinez v. gaimari, 271 ill. app. 3d 879, ¶ 13 here, hasib and defense counsel filed a notice rejecting the arbitration award even before 1-10-3506 ¶ 24 next, hasib and defense counsel argue that the reasonableness of a property damage repair discovery as of april 30, 2010, and transferred the case to the mandatory arbitration calendar. on will not be deemed an abuse of discretion unless it is arbitrary or exceeds the bounds of reason. id. reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, and the entry of attorney fees for their failure to participate at the arbitration hearing in good faith filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's ruling. the trial court denied the defendant's motion to filed within 30 days of the entry of final judgment, or if a timely ¶ 12 although the case at bar does not involve a section 2-1401 petition to vacate, which requires set forth with specificity the reasons and basis of any sanction so were advised that the defense firm, parrillo, weiss & o'halloran, had first located hasib within the objections to sean's request to admit indicated that an arbitration hearing was scheduled for june 9, supreme court rule 91(a) (eff. june 1, 1993) provides that "[t]he arbitration hearing shall proceed 3d 1048, 1053, 827 n.e.2d 949, 955 (2005) (issues not raised in the trial court are deemed waived december 30, 2011 request to admit. on may 3, 2010, sean served parrillo, weiss & o'halloran with supreme court appeared for hasib in due course after the lawsuit was filed. a june 2, 2010 order overruling specificallyprovided byrule or statute, pleadings need not be verified all proceedings under this rule shall be brought within the "1.thecertified estimate attached hereto as exhibit 'a'wasprepared 625 n.e.2d 835, 841 (1993). in sean's motion for sanctions for bad-faith responses to the requests 578, 948 n.e.2d 132, 146 (2011). or other paper and state his address. except when otherwise court abused its discretion in finding that defense counsel violated supreme court rule 137 and attention of the pleader or movant. if a pleading, motion, or other 14 395 n.e.2d 549, 550 (1979), people v. davis, 156 ill. 2d 149, 155, 619 n.e.2d 750, 754 (1993), in give rise to a separate civil suit, but shall be considered a claim within incurred as a result of the [offending party's] misconduct, including a reasonable attorney fee." ill. second division affidavit was from steven harris, an attorney with defense counsel, which stated that he appeared order." ill. s. ct. r. 137 (eff. feb. 1, 1994). damage to the vehicle caused by hasib's negligence and its value now are proper. process. employer's consortium, inc. v. aaron, 298 ill. app. 3d 187, 191, 698 n.e.2d 189, 193 finding that hasib and defense counsel did not participate in good faith at the hearing. therefore, unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the the damages to sean's vehicle at $414.04. ¶ 27 for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of cook county is affirmed. court that they did not receive the required notice. defense counsel was also obligated to attempt include an order to pay to the other party or parties the amount of a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may ¶ 22 in overruling hasib and defense counsel's objections to sean's request to admit, the trial 10 true, this case is not only a personal injury action, but it is also a property damage action. thus, the ) circuit court of 777 n.e.2d at 455. the arbitration panel subsequently awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in damages, belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and defendant-appellant, ) arbitration award and in entering judgment because the court did not give 60 days' written notice of 6 ¶ 15 hasib and defense counsel further argue that the trial court cannot consider conduct which counsel failed to participate in good faith. on june 23, 2010, hasib filed a rejection of the award. same analysis that a trial judge would perform. khan v. bdo seidman, llp, 408 ill. app. 3d 564, litigation involving matters that are not in dispute. people v. mindham, 253 ill. app. 3d 792, 799, rule 90 documents, relating to the conduct of the mandatory arbitration hearing. a june 2, 2010 demand on behalf of hasib. around february 4, 2010, sean served hasib, through parrillo, weiss of civil procedure (code) (735 ilcs 5/2-1401 (west 1998)), on the grounds that the defendant is that the award of attorney fees must be related to misconduct arising from failure to comply with supreme court rule 137 against defense counsel only, finding that the objections to sean's request law." ¶ 23 in hasib and defense counsel's brief before the appellate court, they now argue for the first we note that hasib and defense counsel did not contest the amount or the dates and time spent for 2 in their totality did not measure up to good faith. in walikonis v. halsor, 306 ill. app. 3d 811, 816, 11 illinois that once a court acquires jurisdiction, it is the duty of the litigants to follow their case. 834, 838 (1994), that found such a judgment to be void is not followed because it is in direct conflict on behalf of defendant, hasib bangloria. months after they had knowledge of the judgment. id. at 127-28, 777 n.e.2d at 458-59. conclusions or opinions of law. robertson v. sky chefs, inc., 344 ill. app. 3d 196, 200, 799 n.e.2d a separate motion for assessment of attorney fees under illinois supreme court rule 137, claiming on july 21, 2010, sean filed a motion to "quash rejection of arbitration award." the motion also "1-4 objection. requests are improper, asking for opinions that are ill. app. 3d at 125, 777 n.e.2d at 456 (citing johnston v. city of bloomington, 77 ill. 2d 108, 112, january 27, 2010 parrillo, weiss & o'halloran (defense counsel), filed their appearance and a jury is also not persuasive for the same reasons. therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in ¶ 2 background procedural rules relating to discovery. see generally hartnett v. stack, 241 ill. app. 3d 157, 175, 1-10-3506 hearing set for june 9, 2010 would stand. prior to the june 2, 2010, order, there is nothing in the ¶ 25 next, hasib and defense counsel claim that a request to admit must not call for legal 1-10-3506 presiding justice quinn and justice connors concurred in the judgment and opinion. found that defense counsel did not participate in good faith "in connection with and at the arbitration ¶ 17 parties proceeding in good faith is essential to the integrity of the mandatory arbitration 9 arbitration calendar and there is nothing in the record to indicate when defense counsel had actual the hearing. illinois supreme court rule 88 (eff. june 1, 1987) requires that "not less than 60 days' the award, hasib and defense counsel filed a motion to reconsider and vacate the judgment. 2011 il app (1st) 103506 883, 649 n.e.2d 94, 97-98 (1995). a party's presence is required especially where it has not been civil action in which the pleading, motion or other paper referred to v. lamet, 328 ill. app. 3d 729, 731-32, 767 n.e.2d 464, 467 (2002)). ¶ 6 on november 12, 2010, hasib's motion to reconsider was denied. the trial court found that to admit were "frivolous." williams v. dorsey, 273 ill. app. 3d 893, 901, 652 n.e.2d 1286, 1292 (1995). abuse of discretion appellant). ) judge presiding. 1-10-3506 discretion. in smith, the amount of sanctions was limited to those fees incurred in relation to the a trial court's decision to bar rejection of an arbitration award is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. arbitration hearing. see smith, 325 ill. app. 3d at 85, 757 n.e.2d at 106. record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated. a party motion or other paper, including a reasonable attorney fee. ) ¶ 9 hasib and defense counsel argue that the trial court erred in debarring the rejection of the 19, 2010, hasib and defense counsel filed a notice of appeal. on november 30, 2010, hasib and fees. abreu v. unica industrial sales, inc., 224 ill. app. 3d 439, 452, 586 n.e.2d 661, 671 (1991). however, as noted, pursuant to rule 219(c), the trial court may award attorney fees as sanctions reconsider. on appeal, the defendant argues that: (1) the trial court erred in entering judgment on entering judgment on the arbitration award, and the judgment entered was not void. *** 1-10-3506 "last few days." when a party's misconduct has caused another party to incur fees. dyduch v. crystal green corp., 5 however, a trial court's ruling that depends solely on the court's construction of a statute or a were proper. n.e.2d 101, 104 (2001); west bend mutual insurance co. v. herrera, 292 ill. app. 3d 669, 674, 686 ¶ 11 now, once we have a voidable judgment, our next inquiryconcerns the conductof the parties never received notice of the arbitration hearing or the initial judgment order. id. at 123-24, 777 1-10-3506 steinbrecher, 197 ill. 2d 514, 530-31, 759 n.e.2d 509, 519 (2001), and lasalle national trust, n.a. produce, which was filed in the case at bar. see id. property damage lawsuit in the circuit court of cook county against defendant-appellant hasib who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading, motion, esczuk v. chicago transit authority, 39 ill. 2d 464 (1968). and after a traffic accident are not deemed proper in a personal injury action. although, that may be date for lack of proper notice, nor was the court or opposing counsel notified that defense counsel n.e.2d 645, 648 (1997). we will not reverse the trial court's imposition of sanctions absent an counsel was present. an award of damages was entered in favor of sean and against hasib in the hearing, prior thereto, and thereafter." the trial court also assessed $3,175 in attorney fees under further, rule 219(c) gives the trial court the authority to impose sanctions as was done in this case. indicated that the arbitration hearing was set for june 9, 2010. at that time, the plaintiff's attorneys time that "informing a jury in a negligence action that a defendant is or is not insured constitutes (2) the trial court erred in debarring his rejection of the arbitration award and assessing attorney fees court rule 213, by failing to disclose the defendant as giving such granted sean's motion to bar the rejection of the arbitration award, entered judgment on the award, 1-10-3506 reversible error" (quoting neyzelman v. treitman, 273 ill. app. 3d 511, 514, 652 n.e.2d 1300, 1303 715 n.e.2d 326, 330 (1999), the court held that prospectively debarring a motorist from rejecting argued the motion, and the trial court awarded $520 as costs. id. two and a half months later, the hasib at the arbitration hearing pursuant to sean's notice to produce, for hasib's failure to appear "every pleading, motion and other paper of a party 852, 856 (2003). we agree; however, sean's request to admit did not request legal conclusions or defendant filed apetition to vacatethe arbitration judgment undersection 2-1401 of the illinois code 607 n.e.2d 703, 715 (1993), dyduch, 221 ill. app. 3d at 480, 582 n.e.2d at 307 failure to appear at the arbitration hearing pursuant to a notice to produce is sufficient to support a s. ct. r. 219(c) (eff. july 1, 2002). generally, parties are responsible for paying their own attorney ¶ 10 we find juszczyk v. flores, 334 ill. app. 3d 122, 777 n.e.2d 454 (2002), instructive on this sean jordan, ) appeal from the 221 ill. app. 3d 474, 480, 582 n.e.2d 302, 307 (1991). the only restriction imposed by rule 219(c) record that would indicate hasib received any notice of the arbitration hearing date. in a separate order that day, hasib was ordered to appear for a deposition prior to june 9, 2010. the order further april 9, 2010, sean filed a motion requesting the trial court to overrule hasib's objections to his and defense counsel for failure to participate in good faith "in connection with and at the arbitration (1998). arbitration is not to be considered simply a hurdle to cross on the way to trial. id. at 189, company, acting as agent for its insured, hasib bangloria. extension, modification, or reversal of existing law." ill. s. ct. r. 137 (eff. feb. 1, 1994). supreme defensecounsel"ignore[d] the professional responsibilityof his law firm to keep on top ofscheduled ¶ 21 we next examine hasib and defense counsel's argument that the trial court erred in assessing v. ) ¶ 14 this appears to be a case of first impression concerning the legal effect of an improper notice ¶ 20 the trial court herefound that "defendant and defendant's counsel did not participate in good ¶ 28 affirmed. agency lacking personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, or the inherent power to enter the estimate, the necessity of the repairs estimated, or the difference in market value of a vehicle before or other paper; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. if a scheduled arbitration date on june 2, 2010, defense counsel had a legal obligation to apprise the n.e.2d at 455-56. the trial court granted the petition, finding the arbitration judgment void. id. we & o'halloran, with a request to admit facts. on march 2, 2010, hasib served sean with written 8 we agree generally with that argument, as the trial court noted, hasib and defense counsel's conduct 1-10-3506 is well aware that if the request was answered, all references of insurance would have been deleted the attorney fees. also, all of the attorney fees appear to be related to the arbitration hearing and for 4 immediately before the accident and the fair market value of the to admit, sean claimed hasib's objections violated supreme court rule 137 because "they are not for the deposition, and for hasib's frivolous objections to sean's request to admit. sean also filed paper is signed in violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or hearing, prior thereto, and thereafter." judgment was entered on the award. also, within 30 days after the trial court entered judgment on 2010. defense counsel appeared at the scheduled arbitration hearing, although hasib was not upon its own initiative, may impose upon the person who signed it, particular judgment or order, or where the judgment or order is procured by fraud." juszczyk, 334 a previous appellate court decision, in ratkovich v. hamilton, 267 ill. app. 3d 908, 914, 642 n.e.2d ) roger g. fein, sought the assessment of attorney fees against defense counsel for bad faith in failing to produce the prosecution of the motion for sanctions. the fact that no explanation was given for hasib's justice cunningham delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. issue. in juszczyk, we found that the failure to provide at least 60 days' notice of an arbitration order overruled hasib's objections, ordered hasib to respond, and indicated that an arbitration reasonable expense of necessary repair of the damage to sean's in the appellate court, and those arguments are deemed waived. hamilton v. conley, 356 ill. app. 12 re marriage of mitchell, 181 ill. 2d 169, 174-75, 692 n.e.2d 281, 284 (1998), steinbrecher v. occurs when the trial court rules arbitrarily or when its ruling exceeds the bounds of reason. id. the trial court awarded sean attorney fees for 12.7 hours or $3,175. we cannot say that the trial at trial upon their request to do so. defendant is requested to admit that the certified estimate attached written notice of the arbitration hearing was only mailed to the plaintiff's attorneys. the second unrepaired vehicle immediately after the accident is greater than the 1-10-3506 defense counsel's argument that hasib's due process rights were violated because of lack of notice the arbitration award because the court did not give 60 days' written notice of the arbitration hearing; reasonable expense set forth in exhibit `a'." postjudgment motion. hasib bangloria, ) no. 10 m2 0085 and their attorneys. in juszczyk, the defendant and his attorneys were not given at least 60 days' the trial court's sanctions of debarringhasib and defense counsel's rejection of the arbitration award notice [of an arbitration hearing] shall be given to the parties or their attorneys of record." illinois 1-10-3506 objections to the request to admit. on march 30, 2010, the trial court entered an order closing ¶ 3 on january 14, 2010, plaintiff-appellee sean jordan (sean) filed a personal injury and that hasib's objections to the request to admit were frivolous. on september 2, 2010, the trial court amount of $5,000 with no costs. the arbitrators did not make a finding that hasib and defense faith in connection with and at the arbitration hearing, prior thereto, and thereafter." we can affirm where a sanction is imposed under this rule, the judge shall ¶ 26 the purpose of illinois supreme court rule 216 (eff. aug. 1, 1985), is to do away with sean's request to admit. ¶ 7 analysis to change the date or move to strike the date with new notices to be issued. in addition, hasib and 1-10-3506 plus costs. id. the plaintiff then filed a motion for an award of costs, defense counsel appeared and excused by the court and especially when it is required to appear pursuant to a written notice to 2. if the request for admission set forth in paragraph 1 is denied, abuse of discretion. see generally smith, 325 ill. app. 3d at 84, 757 n.e.2d at 105. such a finding 698 n.e.2d at 191. supreme court rule 91(b) requires the presence of the party and good faith and )


All Content © 2007-2012 The Judicial View, L.L.C. All Right Reserved.
About The Judicial View ®  | Privacy Policy   |  Terms of Use   |  Contact Us  |  Advertise