Court Opinion

ID: 9819738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:33:26.052002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:13.943784
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE REID, dissenting: The issue which Zimmerman raises is the subject matter of a pending section 2 — 619 motion to dismiss which he previously filed on January 10, 2003. Thereafter, on May 21, 2003, the trial court: continued Zimmerman’s motion to dismiss which was based on the absence of the section 2 — 622 affidavit, ordered Beauchamp to file a section 2 — 622 affidavit on or before June 30, 2003, and continued the matter to July 23, 2003. However, before Beauchamp filed the section 2 — 622 affidavit and before the trial court ruled on Zimmerman’s motion to dismiss, Beauchamp’s attorney withdrew from the case. On July 23, 2003, the trial court granted Beauchamp’s former attorney’s motion to withdraw and set the matter for status on September 22, 2003. The trial court did not address Zimmerman’s section 2 — 619 motion to dismiss or the fact that Beauchamp had yet to turn in the section 2 — 622 affidavit as previously ordered. Thereafter, Beauchamp, who did not have an attorney, filed a pro se appearance. At the time that he filed his appearance, Beauchamp received improper information from a clerk of the court, which caused him to miss the September 22 status hearing, and the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution. Subsequently, Beauchamp found a new attorney who then filed a section 2 — 1401 petition to have the matter reinstated, which was granted, and Zimmerman appealed. At the time that the trial court was to rule on Zimmerman’s section 2 — 619 motion to dismiss as a result of Beauchamp’s failure to file a section 2 — 622 affidavit, Beauchamp’s attorney withdrew. Consequently, the trial court never ruled on Zimmerman’s section 2 — 619 motion to dismiss. In my opinion, this issue is not properly before this court and should not be ruled upon at this time. The trial court recognized this and I believe we should allow it the opportunity to make a ruling on this issue. This particular matter is one which Zimmerman should pursue in further proceedings below. Zimmerman should either re-notice or re-motion his previous section 2 — 619 motion to dismiss on this particular issue and let the trial court resolve this particular matter. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.