Court Opinion

ID: 9948810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 22:04:36.121552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:53.275587
License: Public Domain

NOTICE                 2024 IL App (4th) 230343-U
 This Order was filed under
                                                                                 FILED
                                           NO. 4-23-0343                       March 6, 2024
 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is
                                                                               Carla Bender
 not precedent except in the
                                  IN THE APPELLATE COURT                   4th District Appellate
 limited circumstances allowed                                                   Court, IL
 under Rule 23(e)(1).
                                            OF ILLINOIS

                                        FOURTH DISTRICT

  EDWARD WEINHAUS,                                              )     Appeal from the
             Plaintiff-Appellant,                               )     Circuit Court of
             v.                                                 )     Sangamon County
  THE ILLINOIS COURT OF CLAIMS,                                 )     No. 21CH129
             Defendant-Appellee.                                )
                                                                )     Honorable
                                                                )     Ryan M. Cadagin,
                                                                )     Judge Presiding.

                JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court.
                Justice DeArmond and Justice Turner concurred in the judgment.

                                               ORDER

¶1     Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s petition
             for writ of certiorari because the Illinois Court of Claims has exclusive
             jurisdiction over tort claims against the State and plaintiff was not denied due
             process.

¶2              In October 2020, plaintiff, Edward Weinhaus, filed a complaint with the Illinois

Court of Claims (Court of Claims) against (1) the State of Illinois, (2) “the Unified Courts of

Illinois”, (3) Judge Timothy C. Evans of the circuit court of Cook County, and (4) Judge Grace

Dickler of the circuit court of Cook County for “Negligent Supervision and Retention and

Willful and Wanton Supervision and Retention of the Hon. Regina A. Scannicchio.”

¶3              In March 2021, the Court of Claims entered an order granting the State’s motion

to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, explaining that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims.

¶4              In September 2021, plaintiff filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the circuit

court of Sangamon County, seeking judicial review of the Court of Claims’ decision. The Court
of Claims moved to dismiss the petition, and the trial court granted the motion, concluding that

plaintiff was not deprived of due process before the Court of Claims.

¶5             Plaintiff appeals, arguing the trial court erred by dismissing his petition for writ of

certiorari. We disagree and affirm the court’s decision.

¶6                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶7                                       A. The Complaint

¶8             In October 2020, plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Claims against (1) the State of

Illinois, (2) the Unified Courts of Illinois, (3) Judge Evans, and (4) Judge Dickler for “Negligent

Supervision and Retention and Willful and Wanton Supervision and Retention of the Hon.

Regina A. Scannicchio.”

¶9             Plaintiff alleged generally that in September 2018, the mother of plaintiff’s five

children filed an emergency petition for temporary restraining order in Cook County (No.

12-D-8800) that was heard by Scannicchio. In October 2018, plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to

Dickler, alleging that Scannicchio violated the Judicial Ethics Code and asked Dickler to pursue

administrative remedies against Scannicchio. Dickler did not take any action, and Scannicchio

continued to preside over the case.

¶ 10           Later in October 2018, following a hearing, Scannicchio denied the petition for

temporary restraining order. Plaintiff’s attorney then drafted the court order, noting that the

petition had been denied, withdrew his appearance, and left the courtroom. Plaintiff alleged that

after his attorney left, “without any matter in front of the Court, Scannicchio, outside the scope

of her authority, ordered a termination of all visitation between [plaintiff] and [the children].”

¶ 11           Plaintiff also alleged that this part of the order lacked any legal basis and that

Scannicchio ordered a complete suspension of plaintiff’s visitation without any findings or a

                                                -2-
hearing on any matter. In addition, plaintiff claimed he was not given notice of the matter, no

testimony was presented, and he was denied the right to counsel. As a result of this order,

plaintiff alleged that he and his five children suffered, among other injuries, (1) emotional and

mental pain and suffering, (2) past loss of normal life, and (3) future loss of normal life.

¶ 12                 B. The State’s Motion To Dismiss in the Court of Claims

¶ 13           In December 2020, the State filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint,

arguing that the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over claims regarding (1) the supervision

and retention of judges, (2) individuals, and (3) any order entered in the domestic relations

action. The State also asserted that any claims against the judges were barred by the doctrine of

judicial immunity.

¶ 14           Plaintiff responded that (1) the Court of Claims had jurisdiction over claims

concerning the supervision and retention of judges and (2) such claims were not barred by

judicial immunity.

¶ 15           In March 2021, the Court of Claims entered an order granting the State’s motion

to dismiss. The Court of Claims explained that it lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims

because the Illinois Constitution vested jurisdiction in (1) the Judicial Inquiry Board to

investigate claims of judicial misconduct and (2) the Independent Courts Commission to hear

formal complaints from the Judicial Inquiry Board and issue discipline. The Court of Claims also

held that (1) it lacked jurisdiction over claims against individuals, (2) the claims against the

judges were barred by judicial immunity, and (3) plaintiff was required to exhaust any judicial

remedies and could not collaterally attack the trial court’s orders in the domestic relations case.

¶ 16           Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the decision, arguing that the Court of

Claims “mistakenly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and then imputed judicial immunity for

                                                -3-
administrative acts to the State.” The Court of Claims denied the motion, explaining that plaintiff

was reasserting arguments that he previously made, which was not a basis for rehearing.

¶ 17                             C. The Petition in the Trial Court

¶ 18           In September 2021, plaintiff filed a petition in the circuit court of Lake County,

which was transferred to the circuit court of Sangamon County, for a common law writ of

certiorari, seeking judicial review of the Court of Claims’ decision. The petition alleged that the

“decision of the Court of Claims to foreclose its own jurisdiction to hear issues related to a civil

suit tort action in damages against the State when the same action could be brought against a

corporation denied [plaintiff] an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the allegations of the

Complaint in violation of [his] due process rights.” According to plaintiff, the Court of Claims

erroneously determined that it did not have jurisdiction over his claims and that the claims were

barred by judicial immunity.

¶ 19           In support of the petition, plaintiff attached, among other things, (1) a copy of the

complaint that he filed in the Court of Claims, (2) the State’s motion to dismiss that complaint,

(3) his response to the State’s motion, (4) the Court of Claims’ order dismissing his complaint,

(5) his motion to reconsider the dismissal order, and (6) the Court of Claims’ order denying his

motion to reconsider.

¶ 20           In November 2022, the Court of Claims filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

petition, arguing, among other things, that he failed to state a cause of action. The Court of

Claims argued that plaintiff did not allege facts showing that his right to due process was

violated during the proceeding, which was required to permit judicial review of its decision.

¶ 21           In January 2023, plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss, requesting that

it be denied and arguing, among other things, that the Court of Claims’ failure to exercise

                                                -4-
jurisdiction over his claims deprived him of due process.

¶ 22           In March 2023, the trial court entered an order granting the Court of Claims’

motion to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari for failure to state a claim because plaintiff

was not deprived of due process before the Court of Claims. The trial court ruled that judicial

review of a decision of the Court of Claims was limited to determining whether the Court of

Claims deprived a party of due process and could not be used to review the correctness of its

decision on the merits.

¶ 23           This appeal followed.

¶ 24                                       II. ANALYSIS

¶ 25           Plaintiff appeals, arguing the trial court erred by dismissing his petition for writ of

certiorari. We disagree and affirm the court’s decision.

¶ 26                      A. The Applicable Law and Standard of Review

¶ 27                                   1. The Court of Claims

¶ 28           The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars lawsuits against the State unless the

State consents to be sued. People ex rel. Madigan v. Excavating & Lowboy Services, Inc., 388

Ill. App. 3d 554, 558, 902 N.E.2d 1218, 1223 (2009). The purposes of the doctrine are (1) to

protect the State from interference in the performance of its governmental functions and (2) to

protect and preserve state funds. Id. at 559. Although sovereign immunity was abolished in the

Illinois Constitution of 1970, the legislature was granted the authority to reinstate it (Ill. Const.

1970, art. XIII, § 4), which the legislature did by enacting the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (745

ILCS 5/1 (West 2022) (“Except as provided in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, the Court

of Claims Act, the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, and Section 1.5 of this Act, the

State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in any court.”)).

                                                 -5-
¶ 29           The Court of Claims Act provides that the Court of Claims shall have “exclusive

jurisdiction” to hear and determine, among other things, “[a]ll claims against the State founded

upon any law of the State of Illinois” and “[a]ll claims against the State for damages in cases

sounding in tort, if a like cause of action would lie against a private person or corporation in a

civil suit.” 705 ILCS 505/8(a), (d) (West 2022). The Court of Claims is not a “court” within the

meaning of article VI of the Illinois Constitution. Klopfer v. Court of Claims, 286 Ill. App. 3d

499, 505, 676 N.E.2d 679, 683 (1997). Its function is not to adjudicate cases but “ ‘to receive and

resolve claims against the state.’ ” Krozel v. Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068, ¶ 14, 77

N.E.3d 1165 (quoting People v. Philip Morris, Inc., 198 Ill. 2d 87, 97, 759 N.E.2d 906, 912

(2001)). The Court of Claims Act does not provide for judicial review of the Court of Claims’

decisions. Hastings v. State, 2015 IL App (5th) 130527, ¶ 16, 24 N.E.3d 1283.

¶ 30           Nonetheless, the Illinois Supreme Court has recognized a narrow exception to this

rule, holding that common law certiorari review is available to address allegations that the Court

of Claims denied a party the right to due process. Reichert v. Court of Claims of State of Illinois,

203 Ill. 2d 257, 261, 786 N.E.2d 174, 177 (2003); Rossetti Contracting Co. v. Court of Claims,

109 Ill. 2d 72, 78, 485 N.E.2d 332, 334 (1985); Hastings, 2015 IL App (5th) 130527, ¶ 16.

“Requirements of due process are met by [a tribunal] conducting an orderly proceeding in which

a party receives adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Reichert, 203 Ill. 2d at 261. A

writ of certiorari, however, “may not be used to review the correctness of a decision by the

Court of Claims based upon the merits of the case before it.” Jaros v. Illinois Court of Claims,

2021 IL App (2d) 200397, ¶ 24, 190 N.E.3d 1277 (quoting Reichert, 203 Ill. 2d at 261).

¶ 31                           2. Section 2-615 Motions To Dismiss

¶ 32           A motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735

                                                -6-
ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2022)) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Walworth Investments-LG,

LLC. v. Mu Sigma, Inc., 2022 IL 127177, ¶ 39, 215 N.E.3d 843.

               “In ruling on a section 2-615 motion, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded

               facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom, to determine whether the

               complaint’s allegations—construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff—

               are sufficient to establish a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.” Id.

¶ 33           Illinois is a fact-pleading jurisdiction. Beahringer v. Page, 204 Ill. 2d 363, 369,

789 N.E.2d 1216, 1221 (2003). Accordingly, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to support the

claim asserted, and mere conclusions of fact or law unsupported by allegations of the specific

facts upon which they rest are not sufficient to state a cause of action. Id. at 369, 378. Any

exhibits attached to the complaint are considered part of the complaint. Dvorkin v. Soderquist,

2022 IL App (1st) 201368, ¶ 75, 208 N.E.3d 445.

¶ 34                                 3. The Standard of Review

¶ 35           Appellate courts review a dismissal under section 2-615 de novo. Jaros v. Illinois

Court of Claims, 2021 IL App (2d) 200397, ¶ 23, 190 N.E.3d 1277. “In addition, we review

de novo a circuit court’s denial of writs of mandamus *** and prohibition.” Id. Appellate courts

may affirm a trial court’s grant of a section 2-615 motion to dismiss on any basis supported by

the record. Law Offices of Charles Chejfec, LLC v. Franz, 2023 IL App (3d) 230083, ¶ 37.

¶ 36                                        B. This Case

¶ 37           Plaintiff argues that he stated a claim for a due process violation by the Court of

Claims because he alleged that the Court of Claims exceeded its constitutional authority by

“abstain[ing] from jurisdiction” and not considering the merits of his complaint. Accordingly,

plaintiff argues, the trial court erred by dismissing his petition for writ of certiorari. We disagree

                                                 -7-
and conclude that the court properly dismissed plaintiff’s petition.

¶ 38            Due process is satisfied by the proceedings in the Court of Claims when an

orderly proceeding is held and the party is provided with notice and an opportunity to be

heard. Reichert, 203 Ill. 2d at 261. Here, plaintiff alleged in his petition that (1) he filed his

complaint in the Court of Claims, (2) he was given notice of the State’s motion to dismiss and

responded to that motion, (3) the Court of Claims issued a written order responsive to the parties’

arguments, explaining the reasons for dismissal, (4) plaintiff was then able to file a motion to

reconsider, and (5) the Court of Claims issued another written order denying his motion to

reconsider and explained its reasons for the denial. Based on these allegations, plaintiff’s petition

shows that he has been given ample due process by the Court of Claims.

¶ 39            Nonetheless, plaintiff contends that the Court of Claims violated his right to due

process by failing to consider the merits of his complaint, characterizing its dismissal for lack of

jurisdiction as an unconstitutional abstention from jurisdiction. However, to say this argument is

without merit gives it more credit than it deserves. Simply put, if the Court of Claims determines

that it does not have jurisdiction to hear a claim, then it cannot reach the merits of that claim.

Klopfer v. Court of Claims, 286 Ill. App. 3d 499, 505, 676 N.E.2d 679, 684 (1997) (“Not only

does a tribunal have the right to examine its jurisdiction on its own initiative, it has an

affirmative obligation to do so *** as every act of a tribunal beyond its jurisdiction is void.”).

¶ 40            Whether the Court of Claims erred regarding the jurisdictional issue is not

reviewable. Due process is not violated if the Court of Claims merely misconstrues the law or

otherwise commits an error for which its judgment could be reversed. Reichert, 203 Ill. 2d at

260-61 (“[C]ertiorari may not be used to review the correctness of a decision by the Court of

Claims based upon the merits of the case before it. *** Due process is not abridged where a

                                                  -8-
tribunal misconstrues the law or otherwise commits an error for which its judgment should be

reversed.”). Accordingly, even if the Court of Claims erred in its determination that it did not

have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, a misconstruction of the law does not amount to a due-

process violation. Reyes v. Court of Claims of the State of Illinois, 299 Ill. App. 3d 1097, 1105,

702 N.E.2d 224, 230 (1998) (finding the plaintiff’s due process rights would not be violated even

if the Court of Claims made an incorrect ruling regarding the statute of limitations, which is a

jurisdictional bar to suit).

¶ 41            Because the Court of Claims allowed plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to be

heard on the jurisdictional issue, he was not denied due process. Id. at 1104. See Krozel v. Court

of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068, ¶ 22, 77 N.E.3d 1165 (“[U]nlike the subcontractor

in Rossetti, who never had the opportunity to intervene or present any argument, plaintiff here

had multiple opportunities to be heard on the limitations issue, which satisfies due process

concerns under these circumstances.”); Hastings v. State, 2015 IL App (5th) 130527, ¶ 22, 24

N.E.3d 1283 (holding that the Court of Claims proceedings satisfied due process where plaintiff,

among other things, responded to defendant’s summary judgment motion with a “memorandum

of law that included citations to relevant case law and statutes as well as legal arguments and

analysis”).

¶ 42                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 43            For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 44            Affirmed.

                                                -9-