Court Opinion

ID: 9410497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 16:04:47.301359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.171573
License: Public Domain

No. 1-22-1731
                                    Order Filed July 21, 2023
                                                                FIFTH DIVISION
 ______________________________________________________________________________

                                             IN THE
                               APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                       FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 RICHARD ROSENBAUM,                                          )   Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                                             )   of Cook County.
        Plaintiff-Appellant,                                 )
                                                             )
 v.                                                          )   No. 2019 L 10255
                                                             )
 LINDA MCCONNELL and JAMES GARLANGER,                        )   Honorable Michael Otto and
                                                             )   John A. Simon,
      Defendants-Appellees.                                  )   Judges presiding.

        PRESIDING JUSTICE DELORT delivered the judgment of the court.
        Justices Lyle and Navarro concurred in the judgment.

                                            ORDER

¶1    Held: Under the doctrine of res judicata, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of a count
      that arose from a common core of operative facts as an earlier-filed lawsuit, and therefore
      could have been included in the earlier suit. We dismiss the appellant’s challenge of the
      circuit court’s denial of his motion to leave to file a third amended complaint because we
      lack jurisdiction to consider it.

¶2                                     BACKGROUND

¶3    Richard Rosenbaum sued Linda McConnell in connection with a dispute arising from their

business deal. Rosenbaum filed two lawsuits—one in 2018 and the other in 2019—both of which
1-22-1731

were related to the business deal. The circuit court dismissed a portion of the 2019 suit (the suit at

issue in this appeal) under the doctrine of res judicata. Rosenbaum appealed. We affirm in part

and dismiss in part.

¶4                                             FACTS

¶5     Rosenbaum and McConnell were acquainted for about 18 years before they began

discussing the terms of the deal at issue in this appeal. Rosenbaum and McConnell agreed to

franchise a learning center together. According to Rosenbaum, McConnell misrepresented her

expertise in the educational field and failed to fulfill her obligations regarding the operation of the

learning center, forcing them to ultimately close the center. Subsequently, the franchisor of the

center claimed liquidated damages in the amount of $104,321.34.

¶6     The 2018 lawsuit, Rosenbaum v. McConnell, 18 L 10317 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct.), contained

only one count: a breach of contract claim against McConnell. Rosenbaum contended that, under

the franchise agreement, they were jointly and severally liable for the liquidated damages claim,

but demanded that McConnell pay them in full herself.

¶7     Also in the 2018 lawsuit, Rosenbaum moved to amend his complaint to add a breach of

fiduciary duty count. In support of that proposed count, he alleged that, among other things,

McConnell engaged in nepotic hiring practices and was “generally uncooperative” with him when

it came to business decisions. The court granted that motion in May 2019, but Rosenbaum

neglected to file an amended complaint. Subsequently, Rosenbaum sought again to amend his

complaint to include not only a breach of fiduciary duty claim but also a claim under the

Eavesdropping Act, but the circuit court denied that motion, instead granting him “leave to file [it]

as a new cause of action.” The court’s rationale for doing this was apparently its opinion that the

new claim was not germane to the claims raised in the pending lawsuit.

                                                  2
1-22-1731

¶8     On September 17, 2019, while the 2018 lawsuit was still pending, Rosenbaum followed

the circuit court’s advice and filed the second lawsuit now at issue before us. A few months later,

the circuit court tried the 2018 lawsuit and entered judgment in favor of the then-only defendant,

McConnell.

¶9     That brings us back to the 2019 case. The operative complaint for purposes of this appeal

is the second amended complaint filed in that case on December 2, 2020. For simplicity, we will

refer to it as “the complaint”. It is strikingly similar to the complaint Rosenbaum filed in the 2018

lawsuit. The complaint contained two counts: (1) a breach of fiduciary duty count against

McConnell, and (2) a count under the Eavesdropping Act against both McConnell and James

Garlanger (McConnell’s counsel in the 2018 lawsuit). Comparing the 2019 complaint to the 2018

complaint, it appears that the breach of contract count (which was tried to judgment in the 2018

lawsuit) was replaced by a breach of fiduciary duty count based on the same business deal at issue

in the 2018 lawsuit. Rosenbaum brought the new Eavesdropping Act count against both

McConnell and Garlanger. The Eavesdropping Act claim arose from conversations among

Rosenbaum, McConnell, and third parties, that McConnell allegedly recorded without

Rosenbaum’s consent. McConnell moved to dismiss the complaint based on the doctrine of res

judicata, among other reasons, and Garlanger joined her motion.

¶ 10   On March 3, 2021, the circuit court issued a detailed opinion on the motion to dismiss. The

court dismissed count 1 of the complaint, reasoning that because the fiduciary duty claim arose

from a common core of operative facts as the already-tried breach of contract claim, it was barred

by the doctrine of res judicata. That is, because Rosenbaum could have brought the claim in the

2018 lawsuit but did not, he could not do so now. The court, however, held that count 2 could

stand, because it did not arise from the same common core of operative facts. The claims under

                                                 3
1-22-1731

the Eavesdropping Act did not arise from the learning center but instead from McConnell’s and

Garlanger’s alleged conduct during the litigation of the 2018 lawsuit. The court transferred the

remaining count 2 to the First Municipal District because the amount now at stake under the

Eavesdropping Act claim was $1000, well below the $50,000 threshold of the Law Division.

¶ 11   On January 28, 2022, Rosenbaum moved for leave to file a third amended complaint to add

two counts—one for fraud and the other for unpaid debts. Garlanger moved for summary

judgment.

¶ 12   On June 2, 2022, the circuit court denied Rosenbaum’s motion for leave to file a third

amended complaint. The court granted Garlanger’s motion for summary judgment on the

Eavesdropping Act claim in count 2. However, count 2 remained pending against McConnell. On

October 26, 2022, Rosenbaum moved to voluntarily dismiss count 2 against McConnell,

presumably to obtain an appeal of the prior orders. He then filed a timely notice of appeal.

¶ 13                                       ANALYSIS

¶ 14   On appeal, Rosenbaum argues only that the circuit court erred in (1) dismissing count 1 on

the basis of res judicata; and (2) denying him leave to file a third amended complaint to include a

new fraud claim.

¶ 15    We begin with Rosenbaum’s first argument on appeal, in which he argues that the circuit

court misapplied the doctrine of res judicata. “The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final

judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction bars any subsequent actions

between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action.” Rein v. David A. Noyes &

Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325, 334 (1996). The doctrine reaches “not only to what was actually decided in

the original action, but also to matters which could have been decided in that suit.” Id. at 334–35.

To apply, three elements must be present: (1) “a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court

                                                 4
1-22-1731

of competent jurisdiction”, (2) “an identity of cause of action”, and (3) “an identity of parties or

their privies.” Id. at 335. The facts of this case satisfy these elements.

¶ 16    First, the circuit court in the 2018 case rendered a final judgment on the merits in favor of

McConnell. In other words, Rosenbaum definitively lost on his breach of contract claim that

stemmed from the operation of the learning center. Second, there is an identity of cause of action

between the 2018 and 2019 lawsuits. Both lawsuits arose from the same set of (alleged) operative

facts: McConnell’s mishandling of the operations of the learning center, and subsequent failure to

finance the liquidation thereof. There was no reason that Rosenbaum could not have brought the

fiduciary claim in the 2018 lawsuit, as Rosenbaum’s contention was that she breached her fiduciary

duty in the way she handled her part of the business. Third, both Rosenbaum and McConnell were

parties to the 2018 and 2019 suits. Accordingly, Rosenbaum was barred from pursuing a breach

of fiduciary duty claim once the breach of contract claim, which arose from the same operative

facts, was adjudicated.

¶ 17    Turning to Rosenbaum’s second argument on appeal, we first address jurisdiction. A

reviewing court has an independent duty to consider its own jurisdiction, whether or not the parties

have raised it as an issue, before proceeding to the merits of the case. Secura Insurance Co. v.

Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 232 Ill. 2d 209, 213, 327 (2009) (citing People v. Smith, 228 Ill.

2d 95, 106 (2008), and R.W. Dunteman Co. v. C/G Enterprises, Inc., 181 Ill. 2d 153, 159 (1998)).

¶ 18    McConnell contends that because the order denying Rosenbaum leave to file a third

amended complaint was not listed in the notice of appeal, we do not have jurisdiction to consider

this argument. We agree.

¶ 19
                                                                                             -
        Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(b)(2) (eff. July 1, 2017) requires an appellant to “specify

the judgment or part thereof or other orders appealed from and the relief sought from the reviewing

                                                   5
1-22-1731

court” in the notice of appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal is the jurisdictional step that confers

the appellate court the power to initiate review. People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 104 (2008). Our

supreme court enforces this rule strictly: “Unless there is a properly filed notice of appeal, a

reviewing court has no jurisdiction over the appeal and is obliged to dismiss it.” Id. “A notice of

appeal confers jurisdiction on a court of review to consider only the judgments or parts of

judgments specified in the notice of appeal.” General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163,

176 (2011) (citing People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32, 37 (2009)).

¶ 20    Here, Rosenbaum seeks to appeal the circuit court’s June 2, 2022 order denying him leave

to file an amended complaint. However, this order does not appear in the notice of appeal. The

omission of an order in the notice of appeal is not usually fatal because the order in question is

often in the procedural progression to some later order listed in the notice of appeal, which is

sufficient. Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp., 76 Ill. 2d 427, 435 (1979). However, that is not

the case here. Here, the notice of appeal does not list a single order issued after the June 2 order.

In other words, the June 2 order may have been in the procedural succession to the order dismissing

part of the second amended complaint, but it was not in the procedural progression to it.

¶ 21    Rosenbaum states that he attempted to file an amended notice of appeal, but the “clerk

rejected it”. According to the paper trail attached to his reply brief, it appears the clerk of the

appellate court rejected it. The clerk did so properly, because an original notice of appeal is filed

in the circuit court; an amended notice of appeal is filed in this court only upon this court receiving

and granting a motion for leave to do so. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(b)(5), (d) (eff. July 1,

2017). Rosenbaum filed no such motion with this court. Because Rosenbaum has failed to list the

order he seeks to challenge on his notice of appeal, we are obliged to dismiss that portion of his

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                   6
1-22-1731

¶ 22                                     CONCLUSION

¶ 23   For these reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of count 1. We cannot reach the

merits of Rosenbaum’s challenge of the court’s order denying him leave to file a third amended

complaint because we lack jurisdiction over it.

¶ 24   Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

                                                  7