Kimbrell v. Brown

Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider Dist. Ct. order dismissing one of two defendants on ground that plaintiff's eight-month delay in serving complaint on said defendant violated reasonable diligence requirement set forth in Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 103(b). Dist. Ct.'s order was not final and appealable where plaintiff's action remained pending against other defendant (although said action had been subject to bankruptcy court stay order issued as result of plaintiff's bankruptcy petition). Ct. of Appeals rejected plaintiff's claim that Dist. Ct. order was final and appealable because his action against remaining defendant was void ab initio because it had been filed during pendency of plaintiff's bankruptcy petition where plaintiff had taken contrary position in Dist. Ct. about issue as to whether his claim against remaining defendant remained alive.