Court Opinion

ID: 9728681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:14:00.461475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:50.902617
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WOLFSON, dissenting: I agree that a trial court has the inherent power to modify or vacate an interlocutory order granting summary judgment anytime before final judgment. I also agree a trial court has the power to correct orders that it considers to be erroneous. But this judge didn’t do any of these things. Instead, he granted summary judgment on the issue of damages. His reason, other than apparent pique toward Judge Boharic, is not reflected in the record. Judge Boharic’s order granting summary judgment on the trespass issue never was vacated, modified, or overruled. Nor did the City file any cross-appeal from Judge Boharic’s order. In fact, our opinion today does not seem to be directed at Judge Boharic’s decision that the statute of limitations did not bar the lawsuit. At least, we don’t say we are reversing his order. Instead, we do what Judge Lichtenstein did: the issue before us may be one of damages, but we decide the question of whether the lawsuit was time-barred. I do not believe this is an orderly way to proceed, de novo review or not. I would send the case back to Judge Lichtenstein for resolution of the issue that was placed before him. If it comes back to us we can decide whether and how the statute of limitations might apply to the matter of damages after a holding that the statute does not apply to the filing of the complaint.