Case Title: Morrison v. Wagner

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: illinois

Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Date: 2000-04-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Opinion filed April 20, 2000.
CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON delivered the opinion of the court:
The issue in this case is whether Supreme Court Rule 219(e) (166 Ill. 2d R. 
219(e)) confers on circuit courts the authority to deny pretrial motions for 
voluntary dismissal filed under section 2-1009(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure 
(735 ILCS 5/2-1009(a) (West 1998)). With one justice dissenting, the appellate 
court ruled that it did not. 305 Ill. App. 3d 885. We granted the petition for 
leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315. For the reasons that follow, we now affirm 
the appellate court's judgment.
The litigation which gave rise to this appeal involves a medical malpractice 
action brought by plaintiff Ronald Morrison against defendants C.G. Wagner, a 
radiologist; Michael Feely, a neurosurgeon; and St. Mary's Hospital. Loss of 
consortium claims were also brought against those defendants by Morrison's wife. 
Prior to trial, the Morrisons filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their case 
without prejudice pursuant to section 2-1009(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
That statute provides, in part:
St. Mary's Hospital and Dr. Feely objected to the motion on the grounds that 
the Morrisons had not tendered payment for costs to the defendants. The 
Morrisons thereupon filed an amended motion alleging that they had tendered 
payment for costs. Once this amendment was made, none of the defendants objected 
to the Morrisons' request for a voluntary dismissal.
Despite the absence of an objection, the circuit court denied the Morrisons' 
motion. It based its decision on Supreme Court Rule 219(e) (166 Ill. 2d R. 
219(e)), which provides that
After the motion to dismiss was denied, St. Mary's Hospital settled with the 
Morrisons and was dismissed from the case. The matter then proceeded to trial 
against Dr. Feely and Dr. Wagner. A mistrial was declared as to Feely, but the 
jury returned a verdict against the Morrisons on their claims against Wagner. 
The circuit court entered judgment on that verdict.
The Morrisons moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new 
trial. When those motions proved unsuccessful, they appealed. On review, the 
appellate court concluded that Supreme Court Rule 219(e) could not be construed 
as conferring on trial courts the discretion to deny an otherwise proper motion 
for voluntary dismissal under section 2-1009(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
Accordingly, the appellate court ruled that the circuit court should not have 
denied the Morrisons' motion for voluntary dismissal. It vacated the circuit 
court's judgment in favor of Wagner and against the Morrisons and remanded the 
cause to the trial court with directions to conduct a hearing on the amount of 
costs the Morrisons were required to pay under section 2-1009(a) to secure the 
dismissal they sought. 305 Ill. App. 3d at 890-91.
In reviewing the lower courts' judgments, we begin by noting that section 
2-1009(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, by its terms, confers on plaintiffs an 
unfettered right to voluntarily dismiss their claims without prejudice, upon 
proper notice and payment of costs, "at any time before trial or hearing 
begins." That provision, however, is subject to two qualifications. First, where 
a previously filed defense motion could result in a final disposition of the 
cause of action if ruled upon favorably by the court, the court has the 
discretion to hear and decide that motion before ruling on the plaintiff's 
motion for voluntary dismissal. 735 ILCS 5/2-1009(b) (West 1998). Second, where 
the circumstances of the case are such that dismissal under section 2-1009 would 
directly conflict with a specific rule of this court, the terms of the rule take 
precedence. Catlett v. Novak, 116 Ill. 2d 63, 69 (1987); O'Connell 
v. St. Francis Hospital, 112 Ill. 2d 273 (1986).
In the case before us, no potentially dispositive motion was pending at the 
time plaintiffs moved for voluntary dismissal. Accordingly, the only valid basis 
for refusing to allow plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss their action prior to 
trial under section 2-1009 is if such a dismissal would directly conflict with a 
supreme court rule. No such conflict exists.
As we have indicated, the circuit court premised its ruling on our Rule 
219(e), which prohibits a party from avoiding compliance with discovery 
deadlines, orders or applicable rules by voluntarily dismissing a lawsuit. The 
court apparently believed the Morrisons had failed to properly respond to 
certain pretrial discovery matters and were attempting to utilize section 2-1009 
as a means to evade court-imposed discovery sanctions. Regardless of whether 
this characterization of the Morrisons' actions is accurate, and the Morrisons 
argue that it is not, Rule 219(e) does not sanction the circuit court's 
decision.
While Rule 219(e) does provide that parties shall not be permitted to avoid 
compliance with discovery deadlines, orders or applicable rules by voluntarily 
dismissing their lawsuits, the committee comments to the rule make clear that 
the rule "does not change existing law regarding the right of a party to seek or 
obtain a voluntary dismissal." 166 Ill. 2d R. 219, Committee Comments, at cxiv. 
That right remains unabridged, as the appellate court recognized in this case 
(305 Ill. App. 3d at 889) and has held elsewhere (see Scattered Corp. v. 
Midwest Clearing Corp., 299 Ill. App. 3d 653, 660 (1998); Wright v. 
Desate, Inc., 292 Ill. App. 3d 952, 954 (1997)).
Instead of limiting a party's right to voluntarily dismiss his claims without 
prejudice prior to trial, Rule 219(e) prevents voluntary dismissals from being 
used as an artifice for evading discovery requirements through two entirely 
different mechanisms. First, the rule enhances the monetary burden associated 
with such dismissals. Under section 2-1009(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
plaintiffs must pay costs as a condition of taking a voluntary dismissal without 
prejudice. Rule 219(e), however, provides that in addition to the assessment of 
costs, the court may require the party seeking dismissal to pay the opposing 
party or parties their
Second, Rule 219(e) discourages the abuse of voluntary dismissals by 
attaching additional adverse consequences later, when the party who obtained the 
dismissal seeks to refile. When a case is refiled, the rule requires the court 
to consider the prior litigation in determining what discovery will be 
permitted, and what witnesses and evidence may be barred. 166 Ill. 2d R. 219(e), 
Committee Comments, at cxiv.
Because Rule 219(e) alters the consequences of taking a voluntary dismissal 
rather than restricting a party's right to obtain such a dismissal, the circuit 
court in this case had no grounds for preventing the Morrisons from voluntarily 
dismissing their claims and forcing them to proceeding to trial. If the 
Morrisons deserved to be sanctioned under Rule 219(e) for dismissing their case 
in order to avoid compliance with discovery requirements, the court could have 
assessed the additional expenses specified by the rule. Any further adverse 
action could only be taken when and if plaintiffs refiled their claim in a 
subsequent proceeding. The appellate court was therefore correct in vacating the 
circuit court's judgment in favor of defendant Wagner and against the Morrisons 
and in remanding the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the appellate court is affirmed, 
the judgment of the circuit court is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the 
circuit court with directions (1) to grant the Morrisons' motion for voluntary 
dismissal upon their payment of costs, and (2) to conduct a hearing as to 
whether the Morrisons should be required to pay expenses in addition to costs, 
as authorized by Rule 219(e).
Appellate court judgment affirmed;
circuit court judgment vacated;
cause remanded with directions.