### 1

Summary order filed NO. 5-08-0205 August 11, 2 008; Motion to publish gran

ted IN T HE September 18, 2008. AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS FIF TH DIST RICT

________________________________________________________________________ TI MOTHY A. ROGERS an d ALAN ) Appeal from the WE STFA LL, on Be half of Themselves ) Circui t Court of and All Others Similarly Situat ed, ) M ad iso n C ou nt y. ) Plaintiffs- Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 01-LM-1006 ) TY SO N F OO DS , IN C., ) Ho nora ble ) Ralph J. Mendelsohn, De fend ant-A ppella nt. ) Judge, presi ding.

________________________________________________________________________ JUS TIC E S PO M ER delive red the opin ion o f the c ourt: The defend ant, T yson F ood s, Inc ., a ppeals fr om the order of the ci rcuit

court of Madison Cou nty that denied its motion for a sum ma ry judg me nt. The defendant re quested
a summ ary ju dgme ntinit s f avo r o n the b as is th atfed er al law pre empt s the c la ims of th e plaintiffs, Tim o th y A . Rogers and Alan West fall , which they have brought on behal f of themsel v es and others simil arly sit uated. For the r easons that fol low, we dismis s the defendant' s appeal f

or a lac k of appell ate j urisdi ction. The def en da nt 's juri sdictionalstat ement invokes the jurisdi ction of this court t o review interlocutory orders gr anting, modifying, refus ing, di ssolvi ng, or r efusing to diss olve or modify an injunction. See 188 Ill . 2d R. 307(a)(1). The defendant cites Kellerman v. MCI Telecom mu nicatio ns Corp ., 112 Ill. 2d 428 , 438 (19 86) , May Department Stores Co. v

. Teamsters Un ion Lo cal N o. 7 43 , 64 Ill . 2d 153, 158 ( 1976), and Crain v. Luce nt Technologies, Inc. , 317 Ill. App. 3d 486, 492 (2000), for the propos iti on that t he denialof a motion asserting feder al pree mption as a com plete d efen se to the pla inti ffs' clai ms is subj ect

### 2

to in te rl ocu to ry

app ealund erIl li noi s Supr eme C o urt Rule 30 7(a) (188 Ill. 2d R . 307(a)) because the "pr eemption argument brings into i ssue the authori ty of the trialcourt t o enter the order app ealed from ." How ever, these ca ses deal t with whethe r the pr eemptionissue was with in the sco pe of

the rev iew o f a pro perly app ealab le ordergranti ng or deny ing a moti on to st ayproceedi ngs ora motion for a preliminary

injunction. See Kellerman , 112 Il l. 2d at 434 ("[t ]he tri al cou rt denie d defenda nt's mo tion to d ismiss o r stay the ac tions"); May DepartmentStores Co. , 64 Ill. 2d at 158 ("[t]he c ircuit court issued a tem porary restraini ng orderand 10 days later allowed V enture's motion for a preliminary injunction"); Cra in , 317 Ill. App. 3d at491 ("the court hel d that pl ainti ff's acti on *** should not be stay ed"). A stay is consider ed injunc tive in nature, and thus an or der grant ing ordenying a stay fits sq uarely within Rule 307(a). See Lundy v. Farm ers Group, Inc. , 322 Il l. App. 3d 214 , 216 (20 01)

. The questi on in allthe case s cit ed by t he defendantwas whether ornot the pr eemption iss ue was suf

ficien tly related to th e auth ority of the circuit co urt to en ter the p rope rly appe alable ordergranting or deny ing the injuncti on or stay i n order t o place t he preempti on issue within t

he scope of revi ew. The cite d cases do not stand for

the propos iti on that t

he preempti on issue i s alway s appeala ble as an interl ocutory

appe al as of righ t und er Illinois Supr eme Court Rule 307(a ). To hol d otherwis e would be to i gnor e the l on g-standing princip le that only final judgm ents or orders are ap peala ble un less the particu lar ord er falls with in one of

the ei ght speci fied exceptions enumerat ed byIll inois Supreme Court Rule 307. Chapman v. United InsuranceCo. of America , 234 Il l. App. 3d 968, 970 (1992) (citing In re Marriage of Le ntz , 79 Il l. 2d 400, 406-07 (1980)) . Although t here maybe com pelling pub lic policy reasons for all owing an inte rlocut oryappeal of or ders denying motions that establi sh
a com plete af

fi rmati ve de fe ns e s uc h a s f ed er al pr ee mpt io n, we are powerle ss to gr ant such interlocutory review. Unlike the courts i n Kellerman , May Department Stores Co. , and Cra in , this court i s not i n a posit ion to det ermine whether the preem ption is sue is p rope rly

### 3

with in the scope of

review becaus e an order de nyi ng a motion for a summary j udgment is not a finaljudgment and i s notsubject to int erlocut oryappeal as of right . See City of Chicago

ex rel. Charles Equipment Co. v. United States Fideli ty & GuarantyCo. , 142 Il l. App. 3d 621 , 629 (19 86)

. For the fore going reas ons, we dis miss the defendant' s appeal for a la ck of appe llate juri sdict ion.
Appeal dismis sed.

STE WA RT , P.J., and GO LD EN HE RSH , J., concur.NO. 5-08-0205 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

___________________________________________________________________________________ TI MOTHY A. ROGERS an d ALAN ) Appeal from the WE STFA LL, on Be half of Themselves ) Circui t Court of and All Others Similarly Situat ed, ) M ad iso n C ou nt y. ) Plaintiffs- Appellees, ) ) v. ) No. 01-LM-1006 ) TY SO N F OO DS , IN C., ) Ho nora ble ) Ralph J. Mendelsohn, De fend ant-A ppella nt. ) Judge, presi ding.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Summary order Fil ed: August 11, 2008 Motion to Publi sh Granted: September 18, 2008 Opinion Filed : September 18, 2008

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justice s : Honorable Stephen L . Spomer, J.

Honorable Bruce D. St ewart, P. J., and Ho nor able Ric har d P . Go lden her sh, J ., Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Atto rneys Ro ber t H. S hul tz, Jr., H eyl, Ro yster, V oelk er & All en, P .O. B ox 4 67, 1 03 W

. for Va ndalia Street , Suit e 100, Edwardsvil le, IL 62025; Ka ren L . Ken dall, Heyl, Royster, Appell ant Voelker& A llen, Suite 600 B ank O ne Bu ilding, 124 S.W . Adam s Street, Peoria, IL

616 02-1 352 ; Dav id B. Jo hnso n, A lexa C . Wa rner, S idley Au stin, LL P, O ne S outh Dearborn Str eet, Chicago, I L 60603

___________________________________________________________________________________ Atto rneys John W. Hof fman , Ko re inTil le ry , LL C, One US Ba nk P la za , 5 05 N

. 7th S treet, Su ite for 3600, St. Loui s, MO 63101; He rman Wa tson, Jr., R ebek ah K eith McK inney, Eric J. Appellees Artri p, Watson, Ji mmerson, Marti n, McKinney, Graffeo & Helms, P.C., 203 Greene

Stre et, P .O. B ox 1 836 8, H unt sville , AL 358 04; J. D udl ey Bu tler, J. D udl ey Bu tler, P. A ., 4 99 A B re ak w ate r D riv e, B en to n, M S 3 90 39 ; Jo e E . W ha tle y, Jr ., W ha tle y, Drake & Kallas, L. L.C., P. O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647; Ron Pa rry, Parry , Deering, Futscher & Sparks, P.S. C., 128 East Second Street , P.O. Box 2618, Covington, KY 41012-2618

___________________________________________________________________________________