2015 IL App (4th) 140531 

NO. 4-14-0531 

IN THE APPELLATE COURT

OF ILLINOIS

FOURTH DISTRICT

MANNHEIM SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 83, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF

ILLINOIS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

 Appeal from 

 Circuit Court of 

 Sangamon County 

 No. 13MR795 

 Honorable 

 John Madonia, 

 Judge Presiding.

 JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. 

 Justices Harris and Steigmann concurred in the judgment and opinion. 

OPINION

¶ 1 Plaintiff, Mannheim School District No. 83 (Mannheim), appeals the circuit 

court's order dismissing with prejudice its complaint for administrative review filed against 

defendant, Teachers' Retirement System of Illinois (TRS). The court dismissed the complaint 

because plaintiff failed to sue and serve the correct defendant in compliance with the applicable 

section of the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-107(a) (West 2012)). We affirm. 

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On September 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review, 

seeking the circuit court's review of the August 15, 2013, decision of the Board of Trustees of the 

Teachers' Retirement Systems (Board). Although the substantive content of the administrative 

FILED

April 8, 2015 

Carla Bender

4th District Appellate

Court, IL
- 2 - 

decision is not at issue, suffice it to say the Board found plaintiff was required to contribute to 

two of its administrators' retirement pay due to employment contract addendums.

¶ 4 Plaintiff served defendant by forwarding the complaint and summons via certified 

mail to the executive director of the TRS. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 

section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2012)), claiming the 

circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff (1) was not the proper party to 

bring the lawsuit, (2) sued the wrong defendant, and (3) did not issue a summons within 35 days 

of the administrative decision as required by section 3-103 of the Administrative Review Law

(735 ILCS 5/3-103 (West 2012)). 

¶ 5 In the motion to dismiss and accompanying memorandum in support, defendant 

first claimed the Board is the proper party to be named as defendant, as it was the Board, not the 

TRS itself, that made the underlying administrative decision. Second, defendant claimed

plaintiff was "incorrectly named" as well, as the complaint should have been brought by the 

Board of Education of Mannheim School District 83, not the district itself. Finally, defendant 

claimed plaintiff failed to have the summons issued within 35 days after the administrative 

decision was mailed on August 16, 2013. The summons was not issued until September 30, 

2013, 45 days after mailing. 

¶ 6 In response to the motion to dismiss, plaintiff claimed the issue of naming the 

incorrect parties was addressed in a 2008 amendment to section 3-107 of the Administrative 

Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-107 (West 2012)) in response to the supreme court's decision in 

Ultsch v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 226 Ill. 2d 169, 191 (2007) (administrative review 

case dismissed for failure to name the proper defendant). In 2008, Public Act 95-831 (eff. Aug. 

14, 2008) was enacted and amended section 3-111(a)(4) of the Administrative Review Law to 
- 3 - 

authorize the circuit court to correct misnomers or join agencies or parties. 735 ILCS 5/3-

111(a)(4) (West 2012). Plaintiff claimed if the amendment itself did not save the lawsuit from 

dismissal, public policy should govern and allow plaintiff the opportunity to amend. Further, 

plaintiff argued the delay in issuing the summons did not lie with plaintiff. 

¶ 7 On February 25, 2014, after a hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, the 

circuit court entered a memorandum of opinion, granting defendant's motion with prejudice. The 

court found "the amendments made *** do not cover the specific circumstances in this case, and 

the language of the amended statute does not qualify the plaintiff to add or join necessary 

parties." Noting the precise language of the amendment did not save plaintiff's complaint, the 

court stated:

"Specifically, section 3-107(a) still requires the plaintiff to 

name, as defendants, either the administrative agency that made 

the final decision at issue in the case, or the director or agency 

head, in his or her official capacity. If a plaintiff names just the 

administrative agency, but fails to name all persons who were 

parties of record to the decision, then the amended language of the 

statute would allow for the plaintiff to name and serve the 

additional necessary parties within a renewed 35 day time limit. 

Conversely, if plaintiff names just the director or agency head, in 

his or her official capacity, as defendants in a complaint for 

administrative review, and fails to name the administrative agency, 

board, committee, or government entity, then the plaintiff would 

again have the right to name the administrative agency as an 
- 4 - 

additional defendant and provide for service within the 35 day 

limit. This is how the court reads 735 ILCS 5/3-107(a) [(West 

2012)]. 

In the instant case, plaintiff did not name any defendant in 

its complaint that would have allowed for naming additional 

parties under the strict language of section 3-107(a). In this case, 

the plaintiff named the Teachers' Retirement System, Illinois as the 

only defendant. The Illinois Teachers' Retirement System is 

simply the name of the pension system at issue in the underlying 

administrative decision. Clearly, the Illinois Teachers Retirement 

System is not the administrative agency responsible for the final 

decision, nor does this court consider it to be a board, committee, 

or government entity, such that by naming it as a defendant, 

plaintiff should be granted 35 additional days to name additional 

parties, such as employees, agents, or members, in their official 

capacities, and have them properly served. Equally as clearly, the 

Illinois Teachers' Retirement System is not a director or agency 

head, such that, by naming it as defendant, plaintiff should be 

given 35 additional days to name the Board of Trustees of the 

Teachers' Retirement System as an additional defendant in this 

case. Therefore, based upon the unambiguous language of 735 

ILCS 5/3-107 [(West 2012)], and the specific facts of this case as 

they relate to the named defendant in plaintiff's complaint for 
- 5 - 

administrative review, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the 

complaint and respondent's motion to dismiss shall be granted with 

prejudice.

This decision necessarily requires the court to reject 

plaintiff's additional contention that Illinois public policy indicates 

that adding parties in the instant case should be allowed. This 

court finds that position to be without sufficient merit to justify 

plaintiff's request. The case of Ultsch [] is controlling in this case, 

and based upon the previously stated position of the court, the facts 

of this case do not trigger the legislature's reaction to the supreme 

court's decision in the Ultsch case as seen by the legislature's 

amendments to relevant statutes in the Administrative Review Act. 

Time limits for bringing these type of actions are set forth in 735 

ILCS 5/3-103 [(West 2012)], and such limits would be 

circumvented, if not eliminated, by allowing for the adding of 

parties and serving of summons outside of the exceptions 

addressed earlier in this opinion as contained in the amended 

language of 735 ILCS 5/3-107(a) [(West 2012)]." (Emphasis in 

original.) 

The court found plaintiff's request of the circuit clerk to issue a summons at the time it filed its 

complaint was sufficient to constitute a good-faith effort to comply with the statutory 

requirements regarding service of summons. The court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider. 

¶ 8 This appeal followed. 
- 6 - 

¶ 9 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 10 A. Standard of Review 

¶ 11 Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant's motion for involuntary 

dismissal pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 

2012)). This court conducts a de novo review of a section 2-619 dismissal order. Illinois Ass'n 

of Realtors v. Stermer, 2014 IL App (4th) 130079, ¶ 16. Further, resolving this particular issue 

requires us to construe a section of the Administrative Review Law, and issues of statutory 

construction are likewise reviewed de novo. Bettis v. Marsaglia, 2014 IL 117050, ¶ 12. 

"When construing a statute, this court's primary objective is 

to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. 

[Citation.] The best indication of legislative intent is the language 

used in the statute, which must be given its plain and ordinary 

meaning. [Citation.] It is improper for a court to depart from the 

plain statutory language by reading into the statute exceptions, 

limitations, or conditions that conflict with the clearly expressed 

legislative intent. [Citation.] Words and phrases should not be 

viewed in isolation, but should be considered in light of other 

relevant provisions of the statute. [Citation.] Further, each word, 

clause and sentence of a statute must be given a reasonable 

construction, if possible, and should not be rendered superfluous. 

[Citation.] This court presumes that the legislature did not intend 

absurdity, inconvenience, or injustice. [Citation.] Where statutory 

language is clear and unambiguous, it will be given effect without 
- 7 - 

resort to other aids of construction. [Citation.] However, where 

the meaning of an enactment is unclear from the statutory language 

itself, the court may look beyond the language employed and 

consider the purpose behind the law and the evils the law was 

designed to remedy. [Citation.]" Bettis, 2014 IL 117050, ¶ 13. 

¶ 12 As mentioned, the statute we must interpret is part of the Administrative Review 

Law, which consists of sections 3-101 to 3-113 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/3-

101 to 3-113 (West 2012)). Circuit courts may exercise jurisdiction over administrative review 

cases only as the statute dictates. Slepicka v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 2014 IL 

116927, ¶ 34 (if statutory procedures are not followed, the circuit court has no jurisdiction). That 

is, a court has subject matter jurisdiction of a case only if it is conferred by the constitution or by 

statute. Article VI, section 9, of the 1970 Constitution provides: "Circuit Courts shall have such 

power to review administrative action as provided by law." Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 9. Our 

supreme court has held that when a court exercises special statutory jurisdiction, as in 

administrative review, such jurisdiction is limited to the language of the statute conferring it. 

The court has no powers from any other source. Fredman Brothers Furniture Co. v. Department 

of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 210 (1985). If the statute conferring jurisdiction is not strictly 

complied with, no jurisdiction is conferred on the circuit court. Fredman Brothers, 109 Ill. 2d at 

210. Further, section 3-102 of the Administrative Review Law specifically provides that, unless 

review is sought of an administrative decision within the time and in the manner provided 

therein, the parties to the proceeding before the administrative agency shall be barred from 

obtaining a judicial review. 735 ILCS 5/3-102 (West 2012). 
- 8 - 

¶ 13 B. Administrative Review Law

¶ 14 Plaintiff's argument rests on the interpretation of section 3-107(a) of the 

Administrative Review Law, which provides as follows: 

"Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c) [(referring to zoning 

proceedings)], in any action to review any final decision of an 

administrative agency, the administrative agency and all persons, 

other than the plaintiff, who were parties of record to the 

proceedings before the administrative agency shall be made 

defendants. *** 

No action for administrative review shall be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction based upon the failure to name an employee, 

agent, or member, who acted in his or her official capacity, of an 

administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity, 

where the administrative agency, board, committee, or government 

entity, has been named as a defendant as provided in this Section.

Naming the director or agency head, in his or her official capacity, 

shall be deemed to include as defendant the administrative agency, 

board, committee, or government entity that the named defendants 

direct or head. No action for administrative review shall be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based upon the failure to name an 

administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity, 

where the director or agency head, in his or her official capacity, 

has been named as a defendant as provided in this Section.
- 9 - 

If, during the course of a review action, the court 

determines that an agency or a party of record to the administrative 

proceedings was not made a defendant as required by the 

preceding paragraph, then the court shall grant the plaintiff 35 

days from the date of the determination in which to name and serve 

the unnamed agency or party as a defendant. The court shall 

permit the newly served defendant to participate in the proceedings 

to the extent the interests of justice may require." (Emphases

added.) 735 ILCS 5/3-107(a) (West 2012). 

¶ 15 C. Amendment to Statute

¶ 16 In this case, plaintiff named TRS as a defendant but did not name the Board. The 

Board is the administrative agency which rendered the decision plaintiff sought to challenge, not 

TRS itself. Therefore, plaintiff failed to name the necessary defendant in its review action 

¶ 17 Plaintiff acknowledges it named the wrong defendant but insists it should be 

allowed to amend the lawsuit to name and serve the Board. Plaintiff relies upon Public Act 95-

831, which amended provisions of the Administrative Review Law and presumably was passed 

in response to the supreme court's decision in Ultsch. In Ultsch, a case factually similar to the 

case sub judice, the supreme court determined the Administrative Review Law did not allow the 

plaintiff to amend its complaint when it had named the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund 

instead of the Board of Trustees. Ultsch, 226 Ill. 2d at 191. The court held the Board of Trustees 

was the administrative agency "that plaintiff, under section 3-107(a) of the Administrative 

Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-107(a) (West 2004)), was required to name as a defendant." Ultsch, 

226 Ill. 2d at 191. 
- 10 - 

¶ 18 Presumably, in response to Ultsch, the Senate introduced Senate Bill 2111 for the 

purpose of amending sections 3-103, 3-105, 3-107, 3-111, and 3-113 of the Administrative 

Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-103, 3-105, 3-107, 3-111, 3-113 (West 2006)). The proposed 

amendments, among other changes, (1) defined the circumstances under which a plaintiff may 

amend the complaint to include parties not previously named (735 ILCS 5/3-107(a) (West 2006))

and (2) afforded the circuit court the power to correct misnomers and join appropriate parties

(735 ILCS 5/3-111, 3-113 (West 2006)). To support its claim, plaintiff relies on the following 

House debates, where the House sponsor states the following: 

"Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 2111 deals with 

administrative... the review of administrative law decisions and it 

makes it easier to correct technical mistakes when naming the 

parties in the... in that review... judicial review. And there have 

been a lot of cases that have been thrown out simply because 

somebody misnamed a defendant. For example, one of the more 

recent ones was whether the defendant used the name the Illinois... 

I'm sorry, the plaintiff named the Illinois Municipal Retirement 

Fund and the case was thrown out because the true party that 

should have been named was the Board of Trustees of the Illinois 

Municipal Retirement Fund. So we're trying to make it... make it 

more fair for people that are involved in these types of 

proceedings." 95th Ill. Gen. Assem., House Proceedings, May 20, 

2008, at 71-72 (statements of Representative Nekritz).
- 11 - 

¶ 19 Plaintiff insists these comments demonstrate the legislature's intent to remedy the

seemingly harsh ramifications of Ultsch. According to plaintiff, it is clear the legislature 

intended to "prevent future litigants from losing a review of the merits of an adverse 

administrative decision due to a technical pleading deficiency."

¶ 20 Public Act 95-831 amended at section 3-107(a) states as follows: 

"If, during the course of a review action, the court 

determines that an agency or a party of record to the administrative 

proceedings was not made a defendant as required by the 

preceding paragraph, and only if that party was not named by the 

administrative agency in its final order as a party of record, then 

the court shall grant the plaintiff 35 21 days from the date of the 

determination in which to name and serve the unnamed agency or

party as a defendant. The court shall permit the newly served 

defendant to participate in the proceedings to the extent the 

interests of justice may require." Pub. Act 95-831, § 5 (eff. Aug. 

14, 2008). 

¶ 21 D. Effect of Amendments on Plaintiff's Issue 

¶ 22 Plaintiff insists this amended language allows the circuit court to grant the 

plaintiff 35 days to name and serve the previously unnamed agency. We disagree with plaintiff's 

interpretation of the statute. The strict language of section 3-107(a) does not allow plaintiff to 

amend its complaint under the circumstances presented here. As the circuit court noted, the 

statute outlines only two specific instances when a plaintiff may be allowed to amend: (1) the 

individual employee, agent, or member who acted in his or her official capacity can be added 
- 12 - 

when the plaintiff has named the administrative agency, board, committee, or government entity

"as provided in this section"; or (2) the administrative agency, board, committee, or government 

entity can be added when the plaintiff has named the director or agency head, in his or her 

official capacity, "as provided in this section." In other words, the circuit court may not dismiss 

the action for lack of jurisdiction if plaintiff names either the agency or the individual

representative of the agency.

¶ 23 The "as provided in this section" language refers to the first sentence of section 3-

107(a), which states: "[I]n any action to review any final decision of an administrative agency, 

the administrative agency and all persons, other than the plaintiff, who were parties of record to 

the proceedings before the administrative agency shall be made defendants." 735 ILCS 5/3-

107(a) (West 2012). The parties of record in the administrative proceedings in this case were 

plaintiff and the Board, as represented by the Claims Hearing Committee, consisting of three 

individual board members. Plaintiff did not name any of these parties, but instead named TRS,

the agency, as the only defendant. However, the agency was not a party to the administrative 

proceedings. It is the Board that makes final administrative decisions subject to judicial review 

(40 ILCS 5/16-200 (West 2012)) and is the proper party "[t]o sue and be sued" (40 ILCS 5/16-

171 (West 2012)). 

¶ 24 Because TRS was neither a "party of record" nor an "unnamed agency," plaintiff 

cannot rely on the amendments provided by Public Act 95-831. This public act did not alter the 

paragraph within section 3-107(a) that is ultimately fatal to plaintiff's claim. In other words, the 

amendments to the particular sections of the Administrative Review Law did not remedy the 

situation presented in Ultsch. And that situation is likewise presented here. 
- 13 - 

¶ 25 Despite plaintiff's claim to the contrary, the amendments to section 3-111(a)(4) do 

not save plaintiff either. Public Act 95-831 changed this section as follows: "(a) The Circuit 

Court has power: *** (4) to dismiss parties, to correct misnomers, or to realign parties, or to join 

agencies or parties plaintiffs and defendants[.]" Pub. Act 95-831, § 5 (eff. Aug. 14, 2008). This 

section cannot be read in isolation. Rather, it must be read in conjunction with the provisions of 

section 3-107(a) that allow the addition of parties when either of those two specific conditions is

met. See 735 ILCS 5/3-107(a) (West 2012) (the action will not be dismissed for failure to name 

individuals if the agency or board was named, or dismissed for failure to name the agency or 

board if the individuals were named). "[A] court determines the legislative intent in enacting a 

statute by examining the entire statute and by construing each material part of the legislation 

together, and not each part or section alone." Ultsch, 226 Ill. 2d at 184. The court does not have 

unbridled discretion to correct misnomers or join agencies or parties as plaintiff would have us 

believe. The court's discretion must be confined by the parameters of the appropriate parties as 

specified in section 3-107(a).

¶ 26 E. Summary 

¶ 27 Judicial review of a final administrative decision is confined to the Administrative 

Review Law and the specific procedures prescribed within. "A party seeking to invoke a court's 

special statutory jurisdiction [of administrative review] must strictly comply with the procedures 

prescribed by the statute." Ultsch, 226 Ill. 2d at 178. The supreme court found the "joinder 

provisions" of section 3-107(a) of the Administrative Review Law must be specifically and 

strictly followed, and noncompliance requires dismissal. Ultsch, 226 Ill. 2d at 179. The issue 

presented in Ultsch remains, even after the legislature amended the statute in 2008. That is, the 

Administrative Review Law still does not allow a complaint to be amended after the initial 35-
- 14 - 

day period to add the board that rendered the final decision as a party defendant when the 

agency, which was not a party to the administrative proceedings below, was named as a party in 

the initial complaint.

¶ 28 TRS was not the agency that rendered the final decision in this case. The Board 

rendered the final decision and is the entity, according to its enabling legislation, that is intended 

"to sue and be sued," not TRS. The various sections of the Administrative Review Law do not 

contemplate allowing an amendment to the complaint after the initial 35-day period to include 

the agency that rendered the final decision as a defendant when an individual member of that 

agency was not named. See Jones v. Cahokia Unit School District No. 187, 363 Ill. App. 3d 939, 

943 (2006). In fact, it is imperative that the administrative agency which rendered the final 

administrative decision be named as a defendant, as it is that agency which must file an answer 

consisting of a record of the proceedings before it. See 735 ILCS 5/3-106 (West 2012). As the 

supreme court concluded in Ultsch, the Board is the "administrative agency" as that term is 

defined by the Administrative Review Law. Ultsch, 226 Ill. 2d at 189; see also 735 ILCS 5/3-

101 (West 2012) (" 'Administrative agency' means a person, body of persons, group, officer, 

board, bureau, commission or department (other than a court or judge) of the State, or of any 

political subdivision of the State or municipal corporation in the State, having power under law 

to make administrative decisions."). It is the Board that must be named as a defendant in 

plaintiff's administrative review complaint. Plaintiff failed to name the Board as a defendant 

and, therefore, the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice. 

¶ 29 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 30 For the reasons stated, we affirm the circuit court's judgment. 

¶ 31 Affirmed.