ADR and Mediation

Senate Bill 2503

Topic: 
Judicial facilities fee

(Manar, D-Bunker Hill) allows all county boards to impose by ordinance a “judicial facilities fee” on all defendants convicted in traffic and criminal cases and all civil litigants. The fee may not be more than $30. It also expands the use of this fee from defraying new construction to include renovating existing judicial facilities. Under current law, only Will and Kane counties have authority to do impose this fee for new construction. Scheduled for hearing Tuesday in Senate Judiciary Committee. 

House Bill 4400

Topic: 
Perjury

(Drury, D-Highwood) makes it perjury if a person knowingly under oath makes contradictory statements to the degree that one of them is necessarily false in the same or in different proceedings in which an oath or affirmation is required if: (1) each statement was material to the issue or point in question; and (2) each statement was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged. Makes it a defense if the defendant at the time he or she made each declaration believed the declaration to be true. Just introduced.

Cook County ordinances 15-5775 and 15-5780

Topic: 
Filing fee increase
The Cook County Board has on its agenda two ordinances to increase litigants and defendants' filing fees from $15 to $25 for the court automation fee (15-5775) and from $15 to $25 for the document storage fee (15-5780). These fees are paid by civil litigants and defendants in felony, misdemeanor, municipal ordinance, conservation, and traffic cases (excluding minor traffic cases satisfied without a court appearance. These two ordinances will probably be voted the week of November 16th to take effect December 1, 2015.

Andermann v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Arbitration
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-3478
Decision Date: 
May 11, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion under 9 USC section 4 to arbitrate instant class action, alleging violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act arising out of certain unsolicited phone calls from defendant, who had attempted to explain to plaintiffs that it had acquired their cell phone contracts from plaintiffs’ phone company, and that plaintiffs needed to get new phones or new cell phone company because their current phones were incompatible with defendant’s network. Relevant language in plaintiffs’ contracts with original phone company contained mandatory arbitration clause, and defendant, who was assigned said contracts, was entitled to enforce said clause. Ct. further observed that plaintiffs may have either weak or non-existent claim, since Telephone Consumer Protection Act allows entities with established business relationship with consumers to make unsolicited telephones calls to said consumers.

State of Illinois, Department of Central Management Services v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Civil Court
Arbitration
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 25, 2015
Docket Number: 
No. 118422
District: 
1st Dist.

This case presents question as to whether arbitrator properly directed State to pay approximately $52 million to employees of certain State agencies pursuant to terms of collective bargaining agreement, even though General Assembly had failed to appropriate sufficient funds to said agencies to fully pay said employees. Appellate Court, in confirming arbitrator’s award, found that section 21 of Public Labor Relations Act did not make instant collective bargaining agreement subject to General Assembly’s appropriation power. It also rejected State’s claim that State would owe said employees nothing if General Assembly chose to appropriate all of its funds to purposes other than payment of amounts that State’s agents had agreed to pay employees in collective bargaining agreement.

North Community Bank v. 17011 South Park Ave, LLC

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Mortgage Foreclosure
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 133672
Decision Date: 
Monday, March 16, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.,1st Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
DELORT

In foreclosure case, order confirming sale, rather than judgment of foreclosure, is the final and appealable order. Order of foreclosure and sale cannot be interlocutorily appealed unless it contains required Rule 304(a) language. (CUNNINGHAM and HARRIS, concurring.)

Work Zone Safety, Inc. v. Crest Hill Land Development LLC

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Arbitration
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 140088
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Justice: 
LIU
Court granted equitable relief on judgment confirming arbitration award, in dispute over Defendant's sale of wetlands property to Plaintiff. Arbitrator concluded that Defendant was obligated to repurchase property at a certain price and awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of said price, noting that award "stands" if Defendant failed to repurchase property. Defendant failed to repurchase or appeal, and moved to dismiss supplementary proceedings. Defendant's motion to dismiss was collateral attack on final judgment without satisfying any requirements under Sections 2-1301 or 2-1401, and circuit court's order granting equitable relief to Defendant impermissibly modified judgment and underlying arbitration award. Court properly interpreted arbitration agreement's fee-shifting provision as inapplicable because dispute did not involve escrow funds. (SIMON and NEVILLE, concurring.)

Senate Bill 818

Topic: 
Mental health confidentiality

(Nybo, R-Lombard) amends the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act. It makes records and communications made or created in the course of providing mental health or developmental disabilities services protected from disclosure regardless of whether the records and communications are made or created in the course of a therapeutic relationship. It makes an exception if "unless otherwise expressly provided for in the Act." Just introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Assignments.

Renard v. Ameriprise Financial Services. Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Arbitration
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-1730
Decision Date: 
January 30, 2015
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in confirming arbitration panel’s award in favor of defendant in its claim that plaintiff owed it money based on loans used by plaintiff to build his franchise that he purchased from defendant. Although plaintiff claimed that he did not have to repay said loans and that panel had acted in manifest disregard to terms of franchise agreement and Wisconsin’s Fair Dealership Law, plaintiff could not challenge instant award based only on claim that arbitration panel had committed legal error when finding for defendant. Ct. also rejected plaintiff’s claim that defendant procured instant arbitration award though fraud by defendant’s counsel making inaccurate statements during closing arguments of arbitration proceeding, where said statements were supported by record.

Senate Bill 2799

Topic: 
FOIA

(Currie, D-Chicago) amends the FOIA Act to do two things. (1) It expands exemption (f) to include “correspondence” as exempt from a FOIA request. But this exemption is waived if and only if the specific record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body. If the specific record is publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body, then only those portions of the specific record publicly cited and identified are no longer exempt. Records exempt from disclosure under this subsection and not publicly cited and identified by the head of the public body, including, but not limited to, purely factual material, remain exempt regardless of whether the record was adopted or incorporated into a final decision of the public body. (2) If the public body produces the records after a suit has been filed under this Section, but before the court renders a final judgment, the court must award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the court imposes a civil penalty under subsection (j). For purposes of this subsection (i), a requester “prevails” if the person obtains relief through: (a) a court-approved settlement or consent decree; or (b) a final unappealable judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. House Amendment No. 3 remains in House Executive Committee.