2020 IL App (1st) 190270-U 

 THIRD DIVISION

May 20, 2020 

No. 1-19-0270 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent 

by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

SUBURBAN PRESS, INC., ) Appeal from the 

 ) Circuit Court of 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. 

 ) 

 v. ) No. 16 L 6013 

 ) 

JAMES GHERARDINI, BRET HOOGHKIRK, ) 

KEN MALCHOW, and STATE GRAPHICS, ) 

 ) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

 ) Honorable 

(Michael Chatman, as Assignee for Suburban Press, Inc., ) Daniel J. Kubasiak, 

Plaintiff-Appellee). ) Judge Presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE HOWSE delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices McBride and Cobbs concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The Judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed, plaintiff, Suburban 

Press, Inc., waived its arguments for reversal of the trial court’s orders on appeal by 

failing to raise them until it filed a motion for reconsideration. We grant Michael 

Chatman’s Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 375 because the appeal 

is not well grounded in fact or warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the 

extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. 

 

¶ 2 Plaintiff, Suburban Press, Inc. (Suburban Press), appeals the trial court’s November 19, 

2018 order granting Michael Chatman’s (Chatman) motion to be substituted as plaintiff in place 

of Suburban Press. Suburban Press did not contest the substitution until the filing of its motion 
1-19-0270 

- 2 - 

to reconsider which was denied by the trial court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the 

trial court’s November 19, 2018 order. We also grant Michael Chatman’s request for sanctions 

pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 375(b) (Ill. S. Ct. R. 375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994)) filed in this 

appeal finding Suburban Press’ appeal to be frivolous. Accordingly, we award Chatman his 

reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in the defense of this appeal jointly and severally 

against Suburban Press and its appellate attorney as determined by the trial court on remand and 

following an evidentiary hearing. 

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Plaintiff, Suburban Press, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County against 

defendants, James Gherardini, Bret Hooghkirk, Ken Malchow, and State Graphics (defendants) 

alleging, among other things, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and 

violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (Circuit Court Action). 

¶ 5 On January 17, 2018, a judgment was entered in the District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois (District Court Action) in favor of Chatman and against Suburban Press in the 

amount of $6,473.12. Thereafter, Chatman commenced supplementary citation proceedings to 

discover assets of Suburban Press. During the citation proceedings, Chatman learned of 

Suburban Press’ Circuit Court Action and filed a motion in the District Court Action seeking 

turnover and assignment of Suburban Press’ interest in that Circuit Court Action. 

¶ 6 On September 28, 2018, an order was entered in the District Court Action granting 

Chatman’s motion (District Court Assignment Order) and assigning to Chatman Suburban Press’ 

cause of action pending in the Circuit Court. The District Court Assignment Order made 

findings that Suburban Press was properly served with a citation, was properly noticed for 
1-19-0270 

- 3 - 

Chatman’s motion seeking turn-over and assignment of the Circuit Court Action, and that 

Suburban Press failed to appeal and contest the motion. 

¶ 7 Following the entry of the District Court Assignment Order, on October 2, 2018,

Chatman filed a motion (Motion) in the Circuit Court Action pursuant to section 2-1008(a) of the 

Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILC 5/2-1008(a) (West 2018)) requesting he be 

substituted as the plaintiff arguing that he was the proper party in interest based on the Federal 

Case Assignment Order. 

¶ 8 On October 15, 2018, the trial court entered an order continuing Chatman’s Motion 

because Suburban Press was seeking additional time to contest the District Court Assignment 

Order.” 

¶ 9 On November 19, 2018, the trial court entered an order (Substitution Order) granting 

Chatman’s Motion as follows: 

“This cause coming before the court on the continued motion of Michael 

Chatman to be substituted as plaintiff in place of Suburban Press pursuant to [the 

District Court Assignment Order] entered in [the District Court Case], Suburban 

Press having not filed any petition seeking relief from the [District Court

Assignment Order] and no objection having been filed in this court and the 

attorney for Suburban Press not being present when the continued motion was 

called, but appeared after the court call and the court being advised on the 

premises

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Michael Chatman’s Motion is Granted. Chatman is hereby substituted in place of 

Suburban Press as the plaintiff in this action without change of caption.” 
1-19-0270 

- 4 - 

¶ 10 On November 19, 2018, an agreed order was also entered dismissing the case “with 

prejudice pursuant to the settlement agreement between [Chatman and defendants] ***.” 

¶ 11 On December 18, 2018, Suburban Press filed a motion for reconsideration of the 

November 19, 2018 Substitution Order stating “Defendants allegedly paid Chatman $6,473.16 

and this case was dismissed by settlement ***.” (Motion to Reconsider). The Motion to 

Reconsider further alleged Suburban Press and Gary McGrath “experienced severe economic 

challenges over the past years and as a result is unable to properly contest the Federal Court 

matter and was unable to contest Chatman’s Motion to Substitute as Plaintiff.” Chatman’s 

Motion to Reconsider sought to vacate the November 19, 2018 Substitution Order pursuant to 

section 2-1203 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1203 (West 2018)), based on “certain facts that the 

court should have known at the time it was making its decision.”

¶ 12 In its Motion to Reconsider, Suburban Press (1) alleged “[i]t is unconstitutional and a 

violation of due process to allow Chatman to take over [Suburban Press’] case where he is 

seeking more than $250,000 for a minimal amount of $6,473.16, and, this action shocks one’s 

conscience[;]” (2) argued Chatman’s Motion was brought pursuant to section 2-1402 of the Code 

(Chatman’s Motion was actually brought pursuant to section 2-1008(a) of the Code); and (3) 

challenged the validity of the District Court’s Assignment Order assigning Chatman all rights, 

title and interest to Suburban Press’ Circuit Court Action and permitting Chatman “full authority 

to litigate the [Circuit Court Complaint] in his own name and to settle and dismiss the action on 

any basis at his sole discretion[.]” 

¶ 13 On January 9, 2019, the trial court denied Suburban Press’ Motion for Reconsideration 

and Suburban Press timely appealed. 

¶ 14 This appeal followed. 
1-19-0270 

- 5 - 

¶ 15 ANALYSIS

¶ 16 Substitution of Chatman As Party In Interest 

¶ 17 On appeal, Suburban Press states that he is challenging the November 19, 2018 

Substitution Order which allowed Chatman to substitute as plaintiff. The sole basis offered by 

Suburban Press on appeal for reversal of the November 19, 2018 Substitution Order is its

contention that the assignment of its chose in action – the District Court Assignment Order – was 

improper because the relief provided by the federal court exceeded its authority under section 2-

1402 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1402 (West 2018)). 

¶ 18 In response, Chatman argues, among other things, Suburban Press “never timely 

challenged either the [District Court Assignment] Order or the Circuit Court’s Substitution 

Order” and thus these arguments were waived on appeal. As explained below, we agree. 

¶ 19 “The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to bring to the court’s attention newly 

discovered evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing, changes in the law or 

errors of the court’s previous application to existing law.” Caywood v. Gossett, 382 Ill. App. 3d 

124, 133 (2008). Issues cannot be raised for the first time on a motion to reconsider. Id. at 134. 

Furthermore, “arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration in the circuit 

court are waived on appeal.” Id. 

¶ 20 As Suburban Press acknowledged in its Motion to Reconsider, it did not contest either the 

Assignment Order in the District Court Action or Chatman’s motion to substitute as plaintiff in 

the Circuit Court Action. We further note that the trial court in the Circuit Court Action even 

continued its ruling on Chatman’s Motion to allow Suburban Press an opportunity to challenge 

the District Court Assignment Order in the District Court. However, Suburban Press, did not 

challenged the Assignment Order nor did it raise objection to Chatman’s Motion prior to the trial 
1-19-0270 

- 6 - 

court’s entry of the November 19, 2018 Substitution Order. Instead, Suburban Press’ arguments 

raised on appeal were only presented for the first time in its Motion to Reconsider filed in the 

Circuit Court Action. Nothing in the record suggest that the trial court considered Suburban 

Press’ newly raised arguments when it denied its Motion to Reconsider. Accordingly, Suburban 

Press’ arguments raised on appeal here are waived. See id. 

¶ 21 We note this appeal, like Suburban Press’ Motion to Reconsider was a collateral attack of 

the District Court Assignment Order. A collateral attack on a judgment is an attempt to impeach 

that judgment in an action other than that in which it was rendered.” (Internal quotations 

omitted.) Apollo Real Estate Investment Fund, IV, L.P. v. Gelber, 403 Ill. App. 3d 179, 189 

(2010). 

¶ 22 Where a lower Federal court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, its 

adjudication is the law of the case and its judgment is binding on all other courts, subject only 

the appellate process. U.S. ex rel. Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F. 2d 1072, 1076 (1970); see also 

Malone v. Cosentino, 99 Ill. 2d 29, 32 (1983) (stating “Once a court with proper jurisdiction has 

entered a final judgment, that judgment can only be attacked on direct appeal[.]”); see also 

Morey Fish Co. v. Rymer Foods. Inc., 158 Ill. 2d 179, 186 (1994). However, “a judgment 

rendered by a court which fails to acquire jurisdiction of either the parties or the subject matter of 

the litigation may be attacked and vacated at any time or in any court, either directly or 

collaterally.” State Bank of Lake Zurich v. Thill, 113 Ill. 3d 294, 309 (1986); see also In re 

Marriage of Verdung, 126 Ill. 2d 542, 547 (1989); see also Morey Fish Co., 158 Ill. 2d at 186-

87. While fraud in the procurement of the judgment is also subject to collateral attack, it is “only 

fraud which prevents a court from acquiring jurisdiction, as distinguished from fraud which 
1-19-0270 

- 7 - 

occurred after the court obtained jurisdiction” that would render a judgment void. Apollo Real 

Estate Investment Fund, IV, L.P., 403 Ill. App. 3d at 189. 

¶ 23 Suburban Press does not challenge the District Court’s personal or subject matter 

jurisdiction nor does it allege fraud related to the District Court’s acquisition of jurisdiction. 

Moreover, the record supports the District Court’s jurisdiction. The District Court Assignment 

Order states that Suburban Press was properly served in the citation proceedings and was given 

proper notice of Chatman’s motion seeking turn-over and assignment of Suburban Press’ cause 

of action pending in the Circuit Court, but Suburban Press did not appear. Therefore, the District 

Court Assignment Order is binding on all other courts. See Morey Fish Co., 158 Ill. 2d at 186-

87. 

¶ 24 Suburban Press acknowledged that it did not fight the District Court Assignment Order in 

the District Court Action and as its explanation for not acting cites financial difficulties. 

Additionally, there is no evidence of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the 

judgment in favor of Chatman against Suburban Press obtained in the District Court or the 

citation proceedings subsequently commenced therein. As acknowledged by Suburban Press 

“[a] Federal Court Plaintiff may enforce a Federal Court judgment through Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 69 which provides for supplementary proceedings to enforce a money judgment ***” 

citing International Ass’n. of Heat & Frost Insulators Local 17 Pension Fund v. Northwest 

Mechanical Insulation Co., No. 18-CV-3942, 2019 WL 1002607, at * 3-4 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 69. 

¶ 25 Because the District Court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, the 

Assignment Order was immune from collateral attack. See Morey Fish Co., 158 Ill. 2d at 186-

87; see also Apollo Real Estate Investment Fund, IV, L.P., 403 Ill. App. 3d at 189. Accordingly, 

Suburban Press’ arguments on appeal fail. 
1-19-0270 

- 8 - 

¶ 26 Rule 375(b) Sanctions 

¶ 27 In his brief Chatman argues that Suburban Press’ appeal is frivolous. Chatman also filed 

a motion for Rule 375(b) sanctions (Sanctions Motion) which we ordered be taken with the case. 

Chatman’s Sanctions Motion seeks attorney fees and costs incurred by him in this appeal against

Suburban Press and its appellate counsel, James J. Macchitelli (Macchitelli). Suburban Press did 

not file a reply brief nor is there a response to Chatman’s Sanctions Motion. 

¶ 28 Supreme Court Rule 375(b) allows for sanctions for frivolous appeals and states as 

follows: 

 “If, after consideration of an appeal or other action pursued in a reviewing 

court, it is determined that the appeal or other action itself is frivolous, *** an 

appropriate sanction may be imposed upon any party or the attorney or attorneys 

of the party or parties. An appeal or other action will be deemed frivolous where 

it is not reasonably well grounded in fact and not warranted by existing law or a 

good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. 

*** 

 Appropriate sanctions for violation of this section may include an order to 

pay to the other party or parties damages, the reasonable costs of the appeal or 

other action, and any other expenses necessarily incurred by the filing of the 

appeal or other action, including reasonable attorney fees. 

 A reviewing court may impose a sanction upon a party or an attorney for a 

party upon the motion of another party or parties, or on the reviewing court's own 

initiative where the court deems it appropriate. *** Where a sanction is imposed, 
1-19-0270 

- 9 - 

the reviewing court will set forth the reasons and basis for the sanction in its 

opinion or in a separate written order.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 375(b) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994). 

¶ 29 “An appeal will be deemed frivolous if a reasonable, prudent attorney would not in good 

faith have brought such an appeal” and imposition of a sanction is left strictly to our discretion. 

Mandigo v. Stolman, 2019 IL App (2d) 180466, ¶ 22. 

¶ 30 As discussed above, Suburban Press acknowledged it did not contest Chatman’s Motion 

prior to the trial court’s November 19, 2018 Substitution Order. For that reason alone, Suburban 

Press’ arguments on appeal were waived and there was no basis for its appeal. See Caywood, 

382 Ill. App. 3d at 134. We find this waiver rule to be straightforward and believe that a 

reasonable, prudent attorney would not in good faith have brought such an appeal clearly 

prohibited by well-established waiver rules. 

¶ 31 Even putting waiver aside, while alleging a challenge to the trial court’s November 19, 

2018 Substitution Order, Suburban Press’ entire appeal rests on its contention that the September 

28, 2017 District Court Assignment Order was improper relief under section 2-1402(a) of the 

Code and thus the District Court Assignment Order could not serve as a basis for the trial court’s 

granting of Chatman’s substitution Motion. As discussed above, Suburban Press’ appeal is 

based entirely on an improper collateral attack of the District Court Assignment Order. See 

Morey Fish Co., 158 Ill. 2d at 186-87; see also Apollo Real Estate Investment Fund, IV, L.P., 403 

Ill. App. 3d at 189. 

¶ 32 Suburban Press, both in its Motion to Reconsider and on appeal, makes no jurisdictional 

challenge to the District Court Assignment Order rendering the order immune from Suburban 

Press’ collateral attack. See id; see also Morey Fish Co., 158 Ill. 2d at 186-87. However, what 

makes this appeal particularly egregious is the fact that Suburban Press knew the challenge to the 
1-19-0270 

- 10 - 

District Court Assignment Order had to be made in the District Court Action. In fact, Suburban 

Press delayed the Circuit Court Action so that it could raise its challenges in the District Court 

but failed to take any action in the District Court Action. Now Suburban Press attempts to 

accomplish in this appeal that which it knew he could not do all along in the Circuit Court – 

collaterally attack the binding Federal Court Assignment Order. 

¶ 33 Suburban Press contends in its Motion to Reconsider that it did not challenge the District 

Court Assignment Order in the District Court because of “severe economic challenges over the 

past years[.]” While unfortunate, this does not excuse Suburban Press’ disregard for the rules. 

¶ 34 Suburban Press, which was represented by Macchitelli, filed this appeal that is not well 

grounded in fact and not warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, 

modification, or reversal of existing law and is therefore frivolous. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 375(b) (eff. 

Feb. 1, 1994). In such circumstances, appropriate sanctions include an order to pay the 

reasonable attorney fees and costs of the appeal. See id. 

¶ 35 Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court with directions to conduct an 

evidentiary hearing on the amount of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by Chatman for 

Suburban Press’ appeal to be awarded to Chatman and against Suburban Press and his appellate 

counsel, Macchitelli, who shall be jointly and severally liable thereon. See Kubiak v. City of 

Kenwanee, 228 Ill. App. 3d 605, 608 (1992) (finding Rule 375 sanctions warranted and 

remanding matter to trial court for hearing on reasonable attorney fees); see also Edwards v. City 

of Henry, 385 Ill. App. 3d 1026, 1039 (2008) (allowing request for Rule 375 sanctions and 

remanding the cause to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the amount of 

reasonable Rule 375 sanctions for filing the appeal). 

¶ 36 CONCLUSION
1-19-0270 

- 11 - 

¶ 37 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed

and remanded with directions. 

¶ 38 Affirmed.