Court Opinion

ID: 9732006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:04:37.644333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:22.466426
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WOLFSON, dissenting: I agree that the NLRB proceeding is an action under section 2 — 619(a)(3). Although I would be inclined to say we should apply a de novo standard to a section 2 — 619(a)(3) dismissal that did not require the trial court to weigh facts or determine credibility (Miller v. Thomas, 275 Ill. App. 3d 779, 786-87 (1995)), I will use the majority’s abuse of discretion review of the dismissal. I respectfully dissent because I believe the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed this action. It should have granted a stay, pending the playing out of the NLRB case. There is no way to know, at this point, how long the NLRB will take before it does anything meaningful in this case. Nor can we know whether it will provide complete relief to the parties, a factor the trial judge should consider. See Hapag-Lloyd (America), Inc. v. Home Insurance Co., 312 Ill. App. 3d 1087, 1097 (2000) (“Another discretionary factor that should have been taken into account was whether the Federal Action could provide complete relief to all of the parties”). Overnite has made serious allegations in this lawsuit. Illinois residents have a substantial interest in how purported acts of labor violence are litigated. It could be the NLRB will do all that should be done, but we cannot know that at this point. If there is no full and fair resolution of the issues raised here and at the NLRB, Overnite will be left without a remedy. That would be no service to the administration of justice in this state. Staying the Illinois proceeding would do no harm and would protect the rights of the parties in a lawsuit that raises matters of public interest.