Court Opinion

ID: 9534973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:44:13.635833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:08.873346
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE JONES, dissenting: I agree with the decision of the majority that Counts II and III of plaintiff’s complaint do not state a cause of action and concur with that portion of their opinion which affirms the dismissal of those counts by the trial court. However, I disagree with the result the majority has reached regarding count I of plaintiff’s complaint, and accordingly I respectfully dissent. The trial court filed an order dismissing count I of plaintiff’s complaint in which it expressly found that count I lacked sufficient facts to state a cause of action and that it was stated in terms of pure conclusion. In this finding I believe the trial court was correct. The essential elements of a cause of action for false arrest or false imprisonment are that the plaintiff was restrained or arrested by defendant without his having reasonable grounds to believe an offense had been or was being committed by plaintiff. Karow v. Student Inns, Inc. (1976), 43 Ill. App. 3d 878, 357 N.E.2d 682; Shelton v. Barry (1946), 328 Ill. App. 497, 66 N.E.2d 697. In paragraph 4 of count I plaintiff makes the conclusive assertion that defendant had no reasonable grounds to believe that plaintiff was committing or had committed an offense that would justify the arrest. Defendant then does an apparent complete turn around and in cavalier fashion in count II discloses that he was arrested by defendant for illegal possession of marijuana. The allegations and factual disclosures of count II completely change the context of the conclusions of count I. Further facts were clearly called for since it was apparent on the face of the pleadings that the plaintiff might not be able to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action against defendant for false arrest and/or false imprisonment. The majority states, quite correctly, that a complaint may allege inconsistent factual allegations. But plaintiff is not alleging inconsistent factual allegations. Count I alleges conclusions; count II alleges the facts which underlie those conclusions. The magic phrase, “without reasonable grounds,” loses its magic. The trial court perceived the play on words being indulged by the plaintiff and called upon him to give further facts in his count I. It is to be noted that in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss counts I and II, the trial court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff declined the leave to amend and elected to stand on his complaint as originally filed. Plaintiff’s refusal can but cast further doubt upon his ability to state a good cause of action against defendant. Illinois is not a “notice pleading” jurisdiction. The second sentence of section 33(1) of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110, par. 33(1)), unquoted by the majority, states that the common counts shall not be used. Section 31 of the Civil Practice Act speaks to the necessity of alleging facts in pleadings. It provides: “This section does not affect in any way the substantial averments of fact necessary to state any cause of action.” A long line of cases has adhered to the rule that while pleadings are to be liberally construed, and formal or technical allegations are unnecessary, a complaint must nevertheless contain substantial averments of fact necessary to state a cause of action. See, e.g., Ritchey v. Maksin (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 470, 376 N.E.2d 991; Fanning v. LeMay (1967), 38 Ill. 2d 209, 230 N.E.2d 182; Tondre v. Pontiac School Dist. (1975), 33 Ill. App. 3d 838, 342 N.E.2d 290; Kita v. YMCA. A court may consider the ultimate efficacy of a claim in considering a motion to dismiss. (Deasey v. City of Chicago (1952), 412 Ill. 151, 105 N.E.2d 727; Aebischer v. Zobrist (1977), 56 Ill. App. 3d 151, 371 N.E.2d 1003.) And where the facts alleged in a complaint on their face demonstrate that the plaintiff would never be entitled to recover, that complaint is properly dismissed. Winnett v. Winnett (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 7, 310 N.E.2d 1; Miller v. DeWitt (1967), 37 Ill. 2d 273, 226 N.E.2d 630. The majority made an allusion to the Kita case as authority for its result. I agree that Kita is indeed a cogent statement of the standards by which pleadings are to be tested. However, a quotation from that case, which is, in turn, an adopted quotation from Church v. Adler (1953), 350 Ill. App. 471, 113 N.E.2d 327, will show that the majority has misapplied Kita in order to sanction count I of plaintiff’s complaint: ‘The Civil Practice Act does not authorize so-called notice pleading as plaintiff contends, nor does it require a strict pleading as is urged by defendant. A pleading must contain allegations of fact sufficient to state a cause of action. Burr v. State Bank of St. Charles, 344 Ill. App. 332; Stenwall v. Bergstrom, 398 Ill. 377. Verbosity and looseness of form are to be discouraged and in some cases may render the pleading fatally defective. Whether a cause of action is stated is to be judged with the admonitions of liberal construction and reasonable infortnation in mind and the whole complaint must be considered, not merely disconnected parts. Legal conclusions are to be disregarded. Stenwall v. Bergstrom, supra; Heuer v. Davis, 336 Ill. App. 224.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) 47 Ill. App. 2d 409, 420, 198 N.E.2d 174, 180. How does one determine whether a complaint states a cause of action? There are no fixed rules with a universal application. Illinois has adopted the approach of Professor McCaskill that “cause of action” has a meaning that may vary with the context in which it is considered. In The Elusive Cause of Action by Professor Oliver L. McCaskill, 4 U. of Chi. L. Rev. 281, 309-10 (1937), the author states: “[M]y purpose has been to discuss a few of the uses with sufficient completeness to show the futility of attempting a single comprehensive definition or description which will meet all problems. Although it might be desirable to limit the use of this term to one meaning, creating a new terminology to take care of the other usages, there is no general authority by which this can be done, and courts are reluctant to adopt a new terminology of their own volition. A better course would seem to be to classify the uses, attempting to bring into the foreground the nature of the problem in each case, and its relation to problems in other classes, so as to question the advisability of extending a use in one situation to another unless the problems are similar in kind. With such a process courts are familiar, and it may not be so difficult to obtain its more general adoption when the courts once realize that there are different meanings.” From Van Dekerkhov v. City of Herrin (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 374, 376, 282 N.E.2d 723, 725, we have the following: “As has been pointed out, the line between ‘ultimate’ facts and ‘conclusions of law’ is not easily drawn. (Herman v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co. (1969), 41 Ill. 2d 468, 475.) The same allegation may in one context be deemed to be one of ultimate fact, while in another, ‘* ° * where from a pragmatic viewpoint some of these words do not give sufficient information to an opponent of the character of evidence to be introduced or of the issues to be tried, they are held to be legal conclusions. What is law, what are facts, and what is evidence, for pleading purposes, can be determined only by a careful consideration of the practical task of administering a particular litigation.’ McCaskill, Illinois Civil Practice Act Anno., p. 70 (1933).” Thus it is that the meaning of the term “cause of action” will vary as it is considered in connection with a motion to dismiss under section 45 of the Civil Practice Act, or a motion in arrest of judgment (cf. section 46 of the Civil Practice Act), or joinder and severance of parties or amendments of pleadings, especially after a statute of limitations has run, and so on. Does count I of plaintiff’s complaint state a cause of action? The context in which the question is considered is that count I contains no expression regarding the nature of plaintiff’s claim against defendant, but it seems to be for either false arrest or false imprisonment, or both. The key allegation is the conclusion that defendant arrested plaintiff without reasonable grounds to believe that plaintiff was committing or had committed an offense. No facts were furnished, ultimate or otherwise. In the following count of the same pleading against the same defendant plaintiff acknowledged that he was arrested by defendant for illegal possession of marijuana. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss count I pursuant to section 45 of the Civil Practice Act for the reason that it failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. The court granted the motion and dismissed count I but granted plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintiff refused to amend and elected to stand on count I as filed. It is obvious on the face of the pleadings that count I does not state sufficient facts to allege a cause of action against defendant Sanders. It is also obvious, under the circumstances presented by the pleadings in this case, the plaintiff will never be able to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action against defendant Sanders for either false arrest or false imprisonment. The reason is that, as plaintiff himself has shown, defendant did have probable cause to arrest and imprison plaintiff. The trial court was correct in dismissing count I. The action of the majority now calls up for trial a case that is entirely specious on its face. It is a waste of time and money for the matter to be addressed by judge, jury, bailiffs, etc. Defendant, a deputy sheriff, is sure to incur considerable expense and have his reputation as a police officer impugned. If plaintiff truly had a cause of action against Sanders, he could have had his day in court by the simple expedient of filing an amended count I. The majority was properly concerned that pleadings should be construed so as to do substantial justice to the parties involved. Would that they had adhered to their maxim. In this case substantial justice was denied the defendant. I would affirm as to count I.