McGreal v. Village of Orland Park

Dist. Ct. did not err in directing plaintiff’s counsel to pay $66,191.75 in attorney fees to defendants as sanction for defending against defendants’ motion for summary judgment, where discovery on plaintiff’s retaliatory discharge claim indicated that there was no evidentiary support for such claim. Record showed that: (1) after Dist. Ct. had granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Ct. of Appeals found that plaintiff had failed to produce any admissible evidence to support claims identified by plaintiff on appeal; and (2) Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff’s responses to motion for summary judgment were laden with disingenuous and misleading statements and contained statement of facts that did not comply with Local Rule 56.1 standards. Ct. further noted that counsel’s duty to conduct reasonable investigation into law and facts is renewed at each stage of litigation, including summary judgment stage, and that instant fee award was based on time spent by defendants’ counsel in drafting Rule 11 letters, seeking summary judgment and requesting instant fees. Fact that defendants had not filed formal “motion for sanctions” prior to seeking instant Rule 11 sanctions did not preclude them from obtaining said sanctions, where defendants’ counsel had previously sent letters and emails to plaintiff’s counsel threatening to seek Rule 11 sanctions if plaintiff continued with instant litigation.