Court Opinion

ID: 9906276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 16:04:38.676669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:13.084281
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 211317

                                                                                SIXTH DIVISION
                                                                              December 1, 2023
                                              No. 1-21-1317

                                           IN THE
                                 APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                       FIRST DISTRICT

 MICHAEL W. UNDERWOOD, JOSEPH M. )                              Appeal from the Circuit Court
 VUICH, RAYMOND SCACCHITTI, ROBERT )                            of Cook County.
 McNULTY, JOHN E. DORN, WILLIAM J.              )
 SELKE, JANIECE R. ARCHER, DENNIS               )
 MUSHOL, RICHARD AGUINAGA, JAMES )
 SANDOW, CATHERINE A. SANDOW,                   )
 MARIE JOHONSTON, and 337 NAMED                 )
 PLAINTIFFS LISTED IN EXHIBIT 23 TO             )
 THE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT,            ∗      )
                                                )
        Plaintiffs-Appellants,                  )
                                                )
        v.                                      )               No. 13 CH 17450
                                                )
 THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal               )               The Honorable
 Corporation; TRUSTEES OF THE                   )               Neil H. Cohen,
 POLICEMEN’S ANNUITY AND                        )               Judge, presiding.
 BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO;                       )
 TRUSTEES OF THE FIREMEN’S                      )
 ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF                    )
 CHICAGO; TRUSTEES OF THE MUNICIPAL)
 EMPLOYEES’ ANNUITY AND BENEFIT                 )
 FUND OF CHICAGO; and TRUSTEES OF               )
 THE LABORERS’ AND RETIREMENT                   )
 BOARD EMPLOYEES’ ANNUNITY AND                  )
 BENEIFT FUND OF CHICAGO,                       )
                                                )
        Defendants                              )
                                                )
 (The City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, )
 Defendant-Appellee).                           )

            ∗
             See the appendix to this opinion for a list of the 337 named plaintiffs listed in exhibit 23 to
the sixth amended complaint.
     No. 1-21-1317

                     PRESIDING JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court,
     with opinion.
                     Justices C.A. Walker and Tailor concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                               OPINION

¶1             The City of Chicago (City), a defendant and the sole appellee in this appeal, filed a

        motion in the trial court seeking an order dismissing the case against it with prejudice. The trial

        court granted the City’s motion on September 9, 2021. In its order, the trial court quoted Justice

        Mikva, who had written on behalf of a unanimous appellate court: “It is absolutely law of the

        case that the plaintiffs have no right to receive—and that neither the City nor the Funds have

        any obligation to provide—any additional monetary contributions or to guarantee affordable

        healthcare.” Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53 (Underwood III).

        Then-appellate court Justices Cunningham and Connors concurred.

¶2             On this appeal, the issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims

        against the City seeking additional money and guarantees of health care. For the reasons

        discussed below, we affirm.

¶3                                           BACKGROUND

¶4                                             I. The Parties

¶5             Plaintiffs’ sixth amended complaint (complaint) is the most recent complaint filed in

        this action. It alleges that plaintiffs are 337 participants in one of the four pension funds named

        as defendants. In Underwood III, this court described plaintiffs as follows: “Plaintiffs in the

        present action are past or present City employees who alleged improper diminution of pension

        benefits under the Illinois Constitution, breach of contract, estoppel, impairment of contract,

        and denial of equal protection.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 14.
                                                      2
     No. 1-21-1317

¶6              Underwood III observed that the City, the sole defendant in the present appeal, 1 is an

        entity that had “provided its retirees with fixed-rate healthcare subsidies funded by city taxes.”

        Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. However, in 1987, “the City announced that it

        would stop providing the subsidies,” and this was the start of the legal troubles that eventually

        led to the present suit. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 9.

¶7              Regarding the four funds who are defendants but not appellees, this court has observed:

                     “The General Assembly created four pension funds for City employees in order to

                administer and carry out the provisions of the Illinois Pension Code: (1) the

                Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund (Police Fund), (2) the Firemen’s Annuity and

                Benefit Fund (Fire Fund), (3) the Municipal Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund

                (Municipal Fund), and (4) the Laborers’ and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity

                and Benefit Fund (Laborers’ Fund) (collectively, Funds).” Underwood v. City of

                Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 3 (Underwood I).

        The taxpayers of the City finance the funds’ obligations “through a tax levy.” Underwood I,

        2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 3. According to appellants, litigation continues in the trial court

        over claims against the four funds.

¶8                                      II. The 1983 and 1985 Subsidies

¶9              In 1983, the City agreed to provide fixed-rate health care subsidies to retired Chicago

        police officers and firefighters. Subsequently, the Illinois Pension Code was amended to

                1
                  Plaintiffs represent in their brief to this court that litigation continues in the circuit court
        concerning claims against the funds. As described below in paragraph 26, the trial court granted
        plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, in part, finding that the funds had a statutory obligation
        under the 1983 and 1985 amendments to contract with one or more carriers to provide group health
        insurance for all eligible annuitants. This issue is not before us on this appeal.
                                                           3
       No. 1-21-1317

          include these subsidies. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7 (citing Pub. Act 82-

          1044, § 1 (eff. Jan. 12, 1983) (adding Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 108½, ¶ 6-164.2)).

¶ 10             In 1985, the Pension Code was further amended to include subsidies to retired

          municipal employees, laborers, and retirement board employees. Underwood III, 2020 IL App

          (1st) 182180, ¶ 7.

¶ 11             The 1983 and 1985 “legislation contemplated that each of the funds established for

          these employees”—namely, the four funds named as defendants here—“would contract with

          an insurance carrier to provide a healthcare plan for its retirees.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App

          (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. The funds would then “use the monthly subsidies provided by the City

          toward the premiums for such coverage.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. If

          the premiums cost more than the subsidies, “the excess was to be deducted from a retiree’s

          monthly annuity,” unless the retiree renounced the coverage. Underwood III, 2020 IL App

          (1st) 182180, ¶ 7.

¶ 12                                      III. The Korshak Litigation

¶ 13             When the City announced in 1987 that it was going to stop paying these subsidies on

          January 1, 1988, it also filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to

          pay them, which became known as the “Korshak Litigation.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App

          (1st) 182180, ¶ 9.

¶ 14             Before the merits of the Korshak litigation were decided, however, the City and the

          funds reached a settlement. This settlement was not a permanent solution but merely an interim

          measure, designed to give the parties more time to reach a more lasting solution. However, if

          they failed to reach such a solution at the end of 10 years, the settlement returned the parties to

                                                        4
       No. 1-21-1317

          the same legal status that they had had on October 19, 1987, when the litigation began.

          Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 10.

¶ 15              Effective August 23, 1989, the Pension Code was amended, to include the terms of this

          first interim settlement, including a 10-year limit. In 1997, before the time limit in the first

          interim agreement expired, the parties reached a second interim agreement, which was set to

          expire on June 30, 2003. On April 4, 2003, the parties reached a final settlement. Underwood

          III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 10-12.

¶ 16                                    IV. The Underwood Litigation

¶ 17              On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a new action against the City and the four funds, which

          is the present Underwood litigation. Underwood I, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 12.

¶ 18              Regarding the Underwood litigation, this court has observed that plaintiffs can be

          divided into “four subclasses: (1) those who retired before December 31, 1987 ***, (2) those

          who retired between January 1, 1988, and August 23, 1989 ***, (3) those who retired on or

          after August 23, 1989 ***, and (4) those who were hired after August 23, 1989.” Underwood

          III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 14. The claims of the first and second subclasses are

          “essentially moot as the parties have settled.” Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2017 IL App

          (1st) 162356, ¶ 46 (Underwood II).

¶ 19              With respect to the third and fourth subclasses, the significance of the date of August

          23, 1989, is that this was the date on which the Pension Code was effectively amended to

          include the terms of the first interim agreement. See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180,

          ¶ 10.

¶ 20              This court has previously found that plaintiffs cannot “state a claim for benefits based

          on the 1987, 1997, or 2003 amendments to the Pension Code because the settlements giving

                                                        5
       No. 1-21-1317

          rise to those amendments were stopgap measures providing only time-limited benefits.” See

          Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 15-16 (describing a prior trial court ruling that

          was affirmed in Underwood II); see also Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 46 (“In

          Underwood II, this court agreed with the circuit court that plaintiffs could not state a claim for

          coverage under the time-limited benefits provided for in the 1989, 1997, and 2003

          settlements.”). This court has found that the 1983 and 1985 amendments to the Pension Code

          contained no time limits and that they “protected the right to a fixed-rate subsidy” but “not a

          particular quantum of buying power or level of healthcare services.” Underwood III, 2020 IL

          App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 15-16. The right to subsidies extended to those in the third subclass, as

          well as to those in the fourth subclass “who began participating before the 2003 settlement.”

          Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 16.

¶ 21                                       V. Underwood II and III

¶ 22             In Underwood II, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice

          of plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, estoppel, impairment of contract, equal protection

          and violation of the special legislation clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 13), leaving only

          issues under the pension clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5).

¶ 23             In Underwood III, which was the last time this suit was before the appellate court, we

          remanded the case back to the trial court so that the trial court could consider, in the first

          instance, “[w]hether the pension protection clause binds the [f]unds to create or approve a

          healthcare plan and administer it for the retirees’ benefit.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st)

          182180, ¶ 50. As we noted above, litigation with respect to the funds is continuing and is

          separate and apart from this appeal, which concerns the City only.

¶ 24             In Underwood III, we answered the two certified questions as follows:

                                                        6
       No. 1-21-1317

                    “(1) plaintiffs’ motion to compel each of the [f]unds to provide its annuitants with a

                    healthcare plan was not barred by this court’s [prior] decision *** and (2) the eligibility

                    cutoff for City employees entitled to receive the fixed-rate subsidies is June 30, 2003,

                    the last day before the terms of the court-approved 2003 settlement were incorporated

                    by legislative amendment into the Pension Code.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st)

                    182180, ¶ 62.

¶ 25                                              VI. This Appeal

¶ 26                On remand, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, in part,

          finding that the funds had a statutory obligation under the 1983 and 1985 amendments to

          contract with one or more carriers to provide group health insurance for all eligible annuitants.2

¶ 27                However, the trial court further found that this obligation did not require the funds to

          pay subsidies in excess of those provided for in the 1983 and 1985 amendments for any group

          health insurance or group health plan. As noted above, these issues are not before us on this

          appeal.

¶ 28                The City moved for an order dismissing the claims against it. In an order granting

          summary judgment in favor of the City, the trial court quoted the “law of the case” language

          from Justice Mikva’s opinion that we quoted in our first paragraph above. Supra ¶ 1. The trial

          court then found:

                    “it is now the law of the case that the only obligation the City has to the annuitants is

                    to levy a tax sufficient to cover the subsidies provided for in the 1983 and 1985

                    amendments and then transfer the collected monies to the [f]unds. Plaintiffs do not

                    This was the question that we indicated in Underwood II that the trial court should address
                    2

          “in the first instance.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53.
                                                           7
       No. 1-21-1317

                 allege, and do not contend, that the City has failed to levy the required tax or transfer

                 the collected monies to the [f]unds.”

          The trial court further found that, since the City’s sole obligation to the annuitants is to levy

          the required tax and transfer the monies to the funds, and since there was no allegation that the

          City was failing in this obligation, the trial court granted summary judgment for the City on

          September 9, 2021. The trial court also observed that it had previously denied plaintiffs’

          motion to file a seventh amended complaint. On October 8, 2021, a notice of appeal was filed

          in the circuit court, and after requests for extensions of time, this case became ready for our

          consideration.

¶ 29                                             ANALYSIS

¶ 30             On this appeal, plaintiffs challenge both the trial court’s denial of their motion to file a

          seventh amended complaint and the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the

          City. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 31                                 I. Motion to File Another Complaint

¶ 32             Plaintiffs’ proposed seventh amended complaint would be their eighth complaint, if

          permitted, and plaintiffs argue that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing them to

          file it. An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person could take the view that the

          trial court took. Meier v. Ryan, 2023 IL App (1st) 211674, ¶ 8. In addition, a trial court’s

          decision to deny leave to file an amended complaint will not be disturbed on review absent a

          clear abuse of that discretion. Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance

          Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 50.

¶ 33             The most important consideration is whether amendment would further the interests of

          justice. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 51. Factors to consider include the

                                                         8
       No. 1-21-1317

          timeliness of the proposed amendment and whether plaintiffs had prior opportunities to amend.

          Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 51. In Insurance Benefit, for example, the

          appellate court stated that it could find no abuse where the “parties had already been litigating

          the matter for nearly five years” and where the facts underlying the causes of action had been

          known since the inception of the lawsuit. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 53.

          In the case at bar, plaintiffs have been litigating for over 10 years, they have received

          permission six times before to file an amended complaint, and the basic facts underlying this

          suit have been known to them since their suit’s inception over a decade ago. Under these facts,

          any reviewing court would be hard pressed to find abuse. Thus, we conclude that the trial court

          did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion to amend.

¶ 34                                       II. Summary Judgment

¶ 35             Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City.

          Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the

          nonmovant, fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact, thereby entitling the moving

          party to judgment as a matter of law. Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Infrastructure

          Engineering, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17; 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2022).

          Summary judgment may be an expeditious manner of disposing of a lawsuit, but it should be

          utilized only when the movant’s right to judgment is clear and free from doubt. Zurich, 2023

          IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17. On appeal, a reviewing court considers de novo a trial court’s

          decision to grant summary judgment. Zurich, 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17.

¶ 36             On this appeal, plaintiffs limit their arguments to dismissal of their (1) contract and

          (2) estoppel claims. Thus, the dismissal of their statutory and constitutional claims, which they

          had made pursuant to the pension clause and the pension code, are not at issue.

                                                       9
       No. 1-21-1317

¶ 37              With respect to contract, they argue that the funds had a contract with the City as the

          insurer which plaintiffs can sue to enforce. With respect to estoppel, they argue that

          representatives of the City repeatedly told plaintiffs at benefit seminars that they had lifetime

          health care guarantees. Based on these claims, plaintiffs seek lifetime health care from the City.

¶ 38              The bottom line here is that plaintiffs continue to seek money and health care

          guarantees from the City, when this court has already found that they have “no right to receive”

          them from either the City or the four funds. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53.

          This court found: “It is absolutely law of the case that the plaintiffs have no right to receive—

          and that neither the City nor the Funds have any obligation to provide—any additional

          monetary contributions or to guarantee affordable healthcare.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App

          (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. The words “absolutely” and “no right” are unusually strong, definitive, and

          unequivocal. See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. 3 Based on this strong and

          unequivocal finding by a fellow panel in this same case, we can find no error in the trial court’s

          grant of summary judgment here. In light of our affirmance of summary judgment, there is no

          need to consider whether a class action should have been certified against the City.

¶ 39                                               CONCLUSION

¶ 40              As citizens, we are grateful for plaintiffs’ service and empathize with plaintiffs’ desire

          for affordable health care, on the one hand, and on the other hand, we understand the City’s

          struggle to keep costs down in an era of declining population. However, the matter before us

          is a strictly legal one where the issues have already been decided by prior panels. To the extent

                  3
                    Plaintiffs in their initial brief to this court criticized the trial court for treating Justice
          Simon’s decision in Underwood II as law of the case while failing to address the much stronger
          language to that effect in Underwood III—that the trial court had quoted in its summary judgment
          order. Plaintiffs’ initial brief cites Underwood III twice: once to note that the trial court was reversed
          in part and once to note that the Underwood III court was “wary of applying law of the case to bar
          matters not actually decided on their merits.”
                                                            10
       No. 1-21-1317

          that a different outcome is warranted, that is a matter for a higher court or the legislature. For

          the reasons already explained above, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in

          favor of the City.

¶ 41             Affirmed.

                                                       11
       No. 1-21-1317

¶ 42                                       APPENDIX
                                                     42 Ca rroll        Pa ul 8.
         1 Last Name       lf irst Name     I        43 Cervenka        Richard G.
         2 Abbey           Leon                      44 Chengary        Ala n
         3 Alongi          Rosemarie                 45 Cla ncy         Pat rick M .
         4 Anrlerson       Don,ild G.
                                                     46 Cla rk          Jean ne
         s Anderson        Michelle
                                                     47 Cla rke         James R.
         6 /\ndler         Robert
                                                     48 Cla rke         Pat ricia S.
         7 Andruz, i       Joseph J.
                                                     49 Clepp           Kat hy
         8 Angelo          Thomas
         9 Antal           Robert P.
                                                     so Cl isham Sr.    John E.
                                                     51 Co le           Jon
        10 Augustine       Lawrence
        11 Azara           John T.
                                                     52 Co nlisk Ill    James B.
        12 Azza ro         Donald J.                 53 Co nrad         Susan M.
        13 Baker           Madelyn                   54 Co nrad         Walter A.
        14 Banahan         Dennis M.                 55 Co nsidine      Joseph E.
        15 Barreto         Nelson                    56 Co nway         Carol J.
        16 Batti st ella   Irene C.                  57 Conwell         Hugh
        17 Batt ist ella   John                      58 Co rcoran       John E.
        18 Bellavia        Ronald J.                 59 Cowell          Raymond M.'
        19 Berman          Barry                     60 Coyne           Michael J.
        ?O Bl~kf'          r,,farion                 61 Cronk           Virigina M.
        21 Blanc           Curt is E.                62 Cu nningham     James J.
        22 Blanc           Ka ren /\,                63 Dalton          Tom
        23 Bobko           John R.                   64 Danihel         William
        24 Bolda           Dennis J.                 65 Danz!           Joseph M.
        25 Bonk            James R.                  66 Davis           W illiamB.
        26 Banke           Fred                      67 DeCola          Sa lvatore L
        27 Borski          Anth ony E.
                                                     68 De Fran cisco   Peter J.
        28 Bot winski      JoAnne
                                                     69 DeFranza        Dona ld
        29 Boyle           Lesli e
                                                     70 DeGiulio        William
        30 Breska          Vict or J.
                                                     71 DeGryse         James J.
        31 Brockman        Ellwood W.
                                                     72 Devivo          Rosalie
        32 Brosnan         Pat rick
        33 Cagney          Edward C.
                                                     73 Dicks           Kenneth
        34 Caliendo        June G.                   74 Dickson         Robert M.
        35 C,imrlf'n       P,it rir.k T.             75 Dorich          Gerald
        36 Campion         William E.                76 Dragon          Dennis
        37 Canchola        Donna J.                  77 Drnek           Dona ld
        38 Canchola        Robert A.                 78 Droba           Gerard
        39 Capesius        Michael C.                79 Drummond        Richard L.
        40 Carlo           Patricia                  80 Drust           WayneW.
        41 Carr            Elalne                    81 Dubielak        Ronald

                                                12
No. 1-21-1317

   -82 Dunn            Terrence L.        122 Green          Mary
    83 Dunn Sr.        Lawrence J.        123 Gunn ell       Donald L.
    84 Durbak          Andres             124 Gutierrez      George
    85 Dyckman         Barbara            125 Gvozdenovich Ant hony
    86 Dyckman         Louis              126 Hagele         Marvin
    87 Dziedzic        Dennis             127 Hammermeist er JoAnne Connelly
    88 Egan            William G.         128 Hammermeist er Raymond F.
    89 Eichler         Thomas             129 Harper         Juana J.
    90 Eldridge        James              130 Harri ngton    Pat rick J.
    91 Engelsman       Richard            131 Hartford       Joseph B.
    92 Eshoo           John C.            132 Hat zel        Joseph
    93 Evanish         Francis            133 Hea ly         John
    94 Everett         Da niel            134 Hea ly         Lawrence
    95 Faragoi         Thomas V.          135 Heidemann      Fred G.
    96 Farrer          Gerald L.          136 Heyden         Fran H.
    97 Fa ust          Robert             137 Hopkins        James T.
    98 Ferriter        John T.            138 Horkavy        Grego ry L.
    99 Ficke           Thomas R.          139 Horn e         Ross
   100 Fields          Robert M.          140 Hourihane      Michael
   101 Finlayson       Donna M.           141 Hujar          Richard A.
   102 Finlayson       James R.           142 Ippolito       Joseph C.
   103 Flanagan, Jr.   Thomas J.          143 Ippo lit o     Patricia
   104 Flynn           Michael C.         144 lvanjack       Ant hony J.
   105 Foley           Janice             145 Januszy k      Donald
   106 Foran           John K.            146 Jazdyk         Raymond
   107 Frank           Al bert M.         147 Jin            Tony H.
   108 Frederick       Art hur G.         148 Johnson        Harold F.
   109 Frost           Barbara C.         149 Juli en        Patricia Lou
   110 Fruin           James E.           150 Kann           Vivian J.
   111 Glowacki        Christi ne         151 Ka rl          Joyce L.
   112 Glynn-Johnson   Mary               152 Keane          Carole L.
   113 Gneda           Diane              153 Kehoe          James G.
   114 Gogli otti      Antoinette         154 Keller, Jr.    Fran k J.
   115 Golczak         Anthony            155 Kelly          Francis
   116 Golen           William J.         156 Kern           George "St eve"
   117 Golosinski      Casimer L.         157 King           Richard
   118 Gorski          St even H.         158 King           Walter
   119 Gottfried       Alan J.            159 Klauba         Bennet
   120 Gould           David R.           160 Kleidon, Jr.   Walter A.
   121 Gray            Curt is            161 Kliner         Donald C.

                                     13
No. 1-21-1317

   -162 Kliner         Helen
                                          ,_
                                           202 Milazzo-Triggs   Catherine
    163 Klodnicki      Johin H.            203 Miller           James
    164 Knight         Eve lyn F.          204 Miller           John F.
    165 Kobel          Rich ard            205 Minich           John
    166 Kocur          Thomas M.           206 Mitkal           Victor
    167 Kopbenhoefer   Charl es            207 Mont edore       Ronald P
    168 Kosteris       Dimitri os          208 Morgan           Charles E.
    169 Kotowicz       James F.            209 Morgan, Jr.      Walt er J.
    170 Kouchoukos     Andrew F.           210 Morley           Christine
    171 Kozaritz       Johin A.            211 Morse            Robert C.
    172 Krupowicz      Kenneth G.          212 M ost acchi o    Santo V.
    173 Kwiatkowski    Robert P.           213 Mueller          Joan
    174 Lambros        Kathleen            214 Munoz            Luis
    175 Lampard        Marilyn C.          215 Murphy           Marie Irene
    176 Leracz         Edmond              216 Murray           Michael M.
    177 Loft us        James R.            217 Nagle            Jeffery Jon
    178 Logan          Patrick             218 Nakaguchi        An n M.
    179 Lo renz        Johin G.            219 Nauer            Donald B.
    180 Lotito         James M.            220 Nieckula         Cynt hia
    181 Lucchesi       James               221 Nork             Charles
    182 Maderak        Terry               222 Nyhan            Thomas P.
    183 Madigan        Raymond             223 O'Connor         Margaret
    184 Madsen         Theodore J.         224 Oga rek          Joseph
    185 Majeske        Albert R.           225 Olivieri         Edwin
    186 Majeske        Carol               226 O'Malley         Francis
    187 Makowski       Karen A.            227 Onest o          Philip
    188 Maley          M u riel M.         228 O'Rei lly        Bernard
    189 Manning        Jen,nifer           229 O'Rourke         James A.
    190 Maratto        Kathleen            230 Oskielunas       Adam B.
    191 Mares          Achilles            231 Ott              RoyJ.
    192 Martin         Patrick             232 Padar            James R.
    193 Massi          Joh n S.            233 Palmer           Ronald A.
    194 McCann         Kenneth J.          234 Paolello         James
    195 McCarthy       George              235 Paoletti         Grayceanne
    196 McFadden       Robert J.           236 Paoletti         James M .
    197 McGivney       Joh n M.            237
    198 McQuaid        Michael J.          238 Parizanski       Pa ul
    199 Midona         Barbara A.          239 Patt             Corinne
    200 Midona, Sr.    Joseph A.           240 Paulnitsky       Roland
    201 Milam          Mary J.             241 Pemberton        Pat rick M.

                                     14
No. 1-21-1317

    242 Peron         Robert J.                282 Sebastian, Jr.   RoyD.
    243 Perovich      Vladim ir                283 Seils            Richard C.
    244 Pizzo         Angeline                 284 Selke            Jerome C.
    245 Poedtke       Ronald                   285 Seyfert          Eugene H.
    246 Poholik       Peter F.                 286 Seyfert          Judith A.
    247 Polerecky     Robert E.                287 Shuman           Bernard
    248 Pontrelli     Darlene                  288 Signoretti       J. Robert
    249 Ptak          Theodore                 289 Sloma            Raymond T.
    250 Quinn         Robert F.                290 Sm it h          Charles J.
    251 Quinn         Sylvia A.                291 Smith            Deborah K.
    252 Ratledge      Robert D.                292 Sobczyk          Jane
    253 Reiter        Mark                     293 Sowinski         Ronald
    254 Ret zke       Gery                     294 Specht           Robert
    255 Reynolds      Thomas A.                295 Speda le         Dominic
    256 Rhoden        Dawn                     296 Spratt           Doris
    257 Rhoden        Ralph                    297 St am pnick      Raymond L.
    258 Rieck         Judit h                  298 St aszak         Norbert
    259 Rimkus        Sta nley                 299 St einmeier      Art hur M.
    260 Rini          Vict or                  300 Strazzante       Charles M .
    261 Rio rdan      Ann                      301 Suess            Robert
    262 Rodgers       Audrey                   302 Sullivan         Michael T.
    263 Rohloff       Richard P.               303 Sut or           Yvon ne
    264 Roo ney Sr.   Pat rick F.              304 Swiat kowski     Da niel
    265 Roscich       Ant hony M.              305 Szparkowski      Debra
    266 Ross          Kenn eth C.              306 Szparkowski      Gary
    267 Rowa n        Karen                    307 Tapkowski        Roman
    268 Rowan         Michael                  308 Terrance         Timot hy J.
    269 Rowan         Richard                  309 Thulis           John
    270 Ruback        Charles R.               310 Tobuch           Lawrence J.
    271 Rumsfeld      Alma                     311 Tolley           John F.
    272 Rya n         David                    312 Tomaska          Joseph A.
    273 Sappanos      Thomas                   313 Tracey           Robert J.
    274 Sarnowski     Ret . Sgt . Robert W.    314 Troken           Eugene B.
    275 Sasso         Kat hryn                 315 Utz              Charl es A.
    276 Sca lise      Ant hony J.              316 Ut z             James J.
    277 Schrager      DanielV.                 317 Vit aioli        Kathleen
    278 Schreiner     Angela M.                318 Vit aioli        Paul
    279 Schultz       Marshall A.              319 Vogt             Vince
    280 Schwab        John                     320 Vucko            Ralph E.
    281 Schwartz      Gerald                   321 Wagner           Patricia M.

                                          15
No. 1-21-1317

     322 Webb        James E.
     323 Webb        Laura M.
     324 Weber       Matthew E.
     325 Wein er     Ben
     326 Welninski   Anthony
     327 Whalen      Thomas Michael
     328 White       Glenn L.
     329 White       Ralph
     330 W iberg     Wayne A.
     331 W inter     Joyce A.
     332 Wo lanski   John
     333 Wo lfe      Joseph
     334 Woody       Lorraine
     335 Yablong     Phil H.
     336 You ng      Phillip P.
     337 Zolna       Clifford A.
     338 Zurawik     James E.
     339 Zurawski    James J.

                                      16
No. 1-21-1317

                Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 211317

Decision Under Review:     Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 13-CH-17450;
                           the Hon. Neil H. Cohen, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                  Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth T. Goldstein, of Krislov &
for                        Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellants.
Appellant:

Attorneys                  Mary B. Richardson-Lowry, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago
for                        (Myriam Zreczny Kasper, Suzanne M. Loose, and Sara K.
Appellee:                  Hornstra, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.

                                           17