Opinion ID: 2441357
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Substitution of Judge as of Right

Text: ¶ 33 We now turn to the merits of this case. Section 2-1001 of the Code provides, in pertinent part: (a) A substitution of judge in any civil action may be had in the following situations:    (2) Substitution as of right. When a party timely exercises his or her right to a substitution without cause as provided in this paragraph (2). (i) Each party shall be entitled to one substitution of judge without cause as a matter of right. (ii) An application for substitution of judge as of right shall be made by motion and shall be granted if it is presented before trial or hearing begins and before the judge to whom it is presented has ruled on any substantial issue in the case, or if it is presented by consent of the parties. (iii) If any party has not entered an appearance in the case and has not been found in default, rulings in the case by the judge on any substantial issue before the party's appearance shall not be grounds for denying an otherwise timely application for substitution of judge as of right by the party. 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2) (West 2006). ¶ 34 As noted, the appellate court found that all defendants have standing to challenge the trial court's erroneous denial of Alder Group's motion for substitution of judge as of right. We disagree. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the remaining defendants do not have standing to challenge the trial court's denial of Alder Group's motion for substitution. ¶ 35 The issue of standing presents a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Wexler v. Wirtz Corp., 211 Ill.2d 18, 23, 284 Ill.Dec. 294, 809 N.E.2d 1240 (2004). The doctrine of standing ensures that issues are raised only by parties having a real interest in the outcome of the controversy. Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon, 216 Ill.2d 402, 419, 297 Ill.Dec. 249, 837 N.E.2d 29 (2005). Standing is shown by demonstrating some injury to a legally cognizable interest. Id. ¶ 36 The essence of the inquiry concerning standing is whether the litigant, either in an individual capacity or in a representative capacity, is entitled to have the court decide the merits of a dispute or a particular issue. In re Estate of Wellman, 174 Ill.2d 335, 345, 220 Ill.Dec. 360, 673 N.E.2d 272 (1996). The purpose of the standing doctrine is to ensure that courts are deciding actual, specific controversies and are not deciding abstract questions or moot issues. Estate of Wellman, 174 Ill.2d at 344, 220 Ill.Dec. 360, 673 N.E.2d 272. Thus, as a general rule, a party cannot complain of an error that does not prejudicially affect that party. Geer v. Kadera, 173 Ill.2d 398, 413, 219 Ill.Dec. 525, 671 N.E.2d 692 (1996). A party must assert its own legal rights and interests, rather than assert a claim for relief based upon the rights of third parties. See Commercial Credit Loans, Inc. v. Espinoza, 293 Ill.App.3d 915, 923, 929, 228 Ill.Dec. 410, 689 N.E.2d 282 (1997). Moreover, one who has obtained by judgment all that has been asked for in the trial court cannot appeal from the judgment. Geer, 173 Ill.2d at 413-14, 219 Ill.Dec. 525, 671 N.E.2d 692. ¶ 37 The remaining defendants argue that they have standing to challenge the order denying Alder Group's motion for substitution as of right. Defendants contend that the primary focus in determining standing is whether the party seeking adjudication has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. Further, defendants note that even nonparties have standing to urge a trial error on appeal if the nonparty can demonstrate a direct, immediate and substantial interest in the subject matter, which would be prejudiced by the judgment or benefitted by its reversal, citing Buntrock v. Terra, 348 Ill.App.3d 875, 284 Ill.Dec. 884, 810 N.E.2d 991 (2004), and Citicorp Savings of Illinois v. First Chicago Trust Co. of Illinois, 269 Ill.App.3d 293, 206 Ill.Dec. 786, 645 N.E.2d 1038 (1995). ¶ 38 Defendants argue that they are each a party to the action and that they each have a personal stake and a direct, immediate and substantial interest in the outcome. Moreover, each defendant clearly has been prejudiced by the liability judgments entered against them after the trial court's erroneous ruling, so that they have standing to challenge the trial court's order denying Alder Group's motion for substitution as of right. ¶ 39 Aside from the general claim that they have been prejudiced by the judgments entered against them, and that they have a personal stake and a direct, immediate and substantial interest in the outcome, defendants fail to demonstrate how they were prejudiced by the trial court's ruling. The fact that the jury entered verdicts against defendants does not establish prejudice. Otherwise, as plaintiffs observe, a losing party could claim nearly any error, against any party, as a basis for reversal without a showing of prejudice. ¶ 40 In fact, Dean Foods Company and Alco of Wisconsin, Inc., each filed a motion for substitution of judge as a matter of right, which the trial court granted. Consequently, those defendants obtained all that was asked for, and everything to which they were entitled, in the trial court. Defendant Reeves did not file a motion for substitution of judge as of right. Therefore, Reeves cannot now complain that he was erroneously denied his right to substitution of judge. ¶ 41 Reeves argues that he did not file a motion for substitution as of right following the denial of Alder Group's motion because to do so would have been futile, as the trial court already had stated that it had ruled on a substantial matter. Nonetheless, Reeves could have filed a motion for substitution of right in order to preserve the issue for appeal. Or, had Reeves believed Judge Banks was prejudiced and that he could not receive a fair trial before her, Reeves could have filed a petition for substitution of judge for cause pursuant to section 2-1001(a)(3) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(3) (West 2006)). Having done neither, Reeves cannot now complain that he was denied a substitution of judge as of right, or that the trial court erred in denying Alder Group's motion. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. O'Malley, 163 Ill.2d 130, 140, 205 Ill.Dec. 534, 643 N.E.2d 825 (1994) (defendant forfeited his right to claim there was no effective waiver of trial judge's disqualification, by failing to pursue the matter until an unfavorable judgment was entered against him); Douglas Theater Corp. v. Gold Standard Enterprises, Inc., 188 Ill.App.3d 573, 580, 136 Ill.Dec. 278, 544 N.E.2d 1053 (1989) (court may not consider relief not requested in the trial court). ¶ 42 It is clear that defendants Dean Foods Company, Alco of Wisconsin, Inc., and Reeves are asserting a claim for relief based upon the rights of Alder Group, rather than asserting their own claims. As plaintiffs point out, in order to show prejudice, defendants would have to show that they had a right to substitution from Judge Banks. As discussed, Alco of Wisconsin and Dean Foods Company did not have such a right, because they already had sought and obtained a substitution of judge from Judge Susan Zwick and Judge James M. Varga, respectively. Reeves cannot claim that he was denied a right to substitution from Judge Banks when he did not seek a substitution of judge, either as of right or for cause. Consequently, defendants do not have standing to challenge the trial court's order denying Alder Group's motion for substitution of judge as of right. ¶ 43 In so holding, we find that the appellate court in Aussieker correctly found that the other 16 plaintiffs in that case had no standing to challenge the trial court's order erroneously denying another plaintiff's motion for substitution of judge. Aussieker, 355 Ill.App.3d at 503, 291 Ill. Dec. 52, 822 N.E.2d 927. Aussieker was correct that the trial court's ruling denying one plaintiff's motion for substitution of judge did not affect the remaining plaintiffs, each of whom was a separate party who could separately assert his or her own right to a substitution of judge. Id. ¶ 44 In addition, having found that the appellate court in Aussieker was correct concerning standing, we overrule the decision in Austin D., 358 Ill.App.3d 794, 294 Ill.Dec. 881, 831 N.E.2d 1206, which found the decision in Aussieker to be simply wrong. ¶ 45 Defendants also argue that because the express language of section 2-1001(a) provides that the substitution of judge provisions pertain to the moving party's right to a substitution of judge in any civil action, a timely filed motion for substitution of judge requires that a different judge hear the entire action. Therefore, the granting of a substitution of judge motion requires that the entire case be assigned to a different judge. Defendants apparently are arguing that because the appellate court found that Alder Group's motion for substitution should have been granted, it follows that if Alder Group was entitled to a new trial because of the erroneous denial of its motion, all defendants who were parties to the entire case are entitled to a new trial. ¶ 46 We need not consider whether the entire case includes all defendants or just Alder Group, as Alder Group now has been dismissed from the case. Given the dismissal of Alder Group, the case need not be remanded to the trial court for a new trial before a different judge. ¶ 47 Accordingly, because the remaining defendants lack standing to challenge the trial court's order denying Alder Group's motion for substitution of judge as of right, we vacate the appellate court's order, which vacated the judgments against defendants Alco of Wisconsin, Dean Foods Company, and Reeves, and which remanded the cause for a new trial as to those defendants. We reinstate the judgments entered in the trial court in favor of plaintiffs and against Alco of Wisconsin, Dean Foods Company, and Reeves. ¶ 48 We also note that given its disposition of the case, the appellate court did not address the remaining issues raised by defendants on appeal. Accordingly, we remand the cause to the appellate court for consideration and resolution of the remaining issues. Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., 237 Ill.2d 30, 51, 340 Ill.Dec. 196, 927 N.E.2d 1207 (2010).