Opinion ID: 2525352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Circuit Court Dismissal of Remaining Counts Under Section 2-615

Text: ¶ 61 In its petition for leave to appeal from the appellate court's judgment, the only issue raised, briefed, or even discussed was the subject matter jurisdiction question relating to claims under section 4(d)(6). Plaintiff did not make any mention of the section 2-615 dismissals. In its brief, plaintiff did not address any failure to include those issues in its petition for leave to appeal. In defendants' response brief, defendants noted that plaintiff's petition solely challenged the subject matter jurisdiction holding of the appellate court and that no other issues were mentioned in the petition, even in abbreviated form. Defendants argue plaintiff has forfeited all other arguments not raised in the petition. In its reply brief, plaintiff asks this court to reconsider its principle that all issues not presented in the petition are not properly before the court and deemed forfeited. Plaintiff complains that petitions for leave to appeal are limited to 20 pages in length and that limit does not allow petitioners the opportunity to fully develop all issues decided by the appellate court, particularly in multiissue cases or cases that are complex. ¶ 62 Supreme Court Rule 315(c)(3) states that petitions for leave to appeal shall contain a statement of the points relied upon in asking the Supreme Court to review the judgment of the Appellate Court. Ill. S.Ct. R. 315(c)(3) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010). The petition must also contain a short argument (including appropriate authorities) stating why review by the Supreme Court is warranted and why the decision of the Appellate Court should be reversed or modified. Ill. S.Ct. R. 315(c)(5). A party's failure to raise an issue in its petition for leave to appeal may be deemed a forfeiture of that issue. Buenz v. Frontline Transportation Co., 227 Ill.2d 302, 320, 317 Ill.Dec. 645, 882 N.E.2d 525 (2008). The fact that a party later raised the issue in its brief does not cure the forfeiture. Buenz, 227 Ill.2d at 321, 317 Ill.Dec. 645, 882 N.E.2d 525. ¶ 63 In this case, only the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is properly before the court. Nowhere in its petition for leave to appeal did plaintiff present argument concerning the section 2-615 dismissals. While this court does not require a fully developed argument in a petition for leave to appeal, a party must raise an argument with sufficient grounds to show there is an issue. Gallagher v. Lenart, 226 Ill.2d 208, 232, 314 Ill.Dec. 133, 874 N.E.2d 43 (2007). Plaintiff's only response to the forfeiture issue, in its reply brief and oral argument, was to complain about the 20-page limitation on petitions for leave to appeal. Therefore, we see no reason to excuse plaintiff's forfeiture of its arguments concerning the section 2-615 dismissal of counts I through V and VII through XIII in its second amended complaint. We find those arguments forfeited and thus they need not be addressed.