Court Opinion

ID: 9529143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:48:00.206959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:41.691339
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. The majority’s holding that this appeal was timely taken rests on the theory that the motion for reconsideration denied by the circuit court was a new motion. This conclusion is based on the majority’s finding that the motion for reconsideration contained allegations of fact not included in the original motion because defendant had no knowledge of them until plaintiff responded to defendant’s interrogatories. The record shows clearly that the only information supplied in the affidavit filed in support of the motion for reconsideration was the names and the cities of the residence of the witnesses described in defendant’s first motion. The appellate court, considering defendant’s argument that the motion for reconsideration was a new motion, said: “Defendant argues his motion to reconsider was really in the nature of a new motion to decline jurisdiction based upon forum non. conveniens. However, the motion followed closely the court’s denial of the original motion, alleged no grounds not found in the original motion and was labeled as a motion to reconsider. Consequently, we do not find this was a new, independent forum non conveniens motion.” (141 Ill. App. 3d 121,122.) I agree with the appellate court that the information included in the motion for reconsideration was insufficient to transform the motion for reconsideration of the original motion into a new motion for dismissal. The record shows that defendant’s original motion stated that plaintiff was a resident of Florence, Kentucky, that plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries as the result of an occurrence near Cincinnati, Ohio, and that the witnesses and evidence are located in the area of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Florence, Kentucky. No affidavits were filed in support of the motion to dismiss. The affidavit of one of defendant’s attorneys filed with the motion for reconsideration repeats the allegations contained in the original motion and supplies the names of six individuals who might be called as witnesses and were, or are now, fellow employees of the plaintiff. It states that they reside in certain named municipalities in either Kentucky or Ohio. It also names four doctors who treated plaintiff and who may be called as material witnesses, and states that two are located in Kentucky and two in Ohio. There is no assertion contained in either the motion for reconsideration or in the supporting affidavit that the information supplied in the affidavit was not known to defendant prior to discovery, or indeed at the time of the filing of the original motion. The nearest that defendant comes to such a contention is the statement in its brief that “using plaintiff’s discovery compliance Southern filed its affidavit in support of the forum motion on January 29, 1985.” This oblique reference, without a claim of prior ignorance of the facts, does not support the majority’s conclusion that the affidavit “was filed for the purpose of supplying an adequate record on review.” (116 Ill. 2d at 246.) More accurately, it was filed as a belated effort to repair an inadequate motion. The appellate court’s order of dismissal was proper and should be affirmed. Having decided that the appeal was timely taken, the majority holds that the circuit court, having found that the case had no connection with St. Clair County, erred in denying defendant’s motion. I have pointed out in several dissents, most recently in Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. (1987), 116 Ill. 2d 217, that the “connections” test is irrelevant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The public factors (Gulf Oil Cory. v. Gilbert (1947), 330 U.S. 501, 508-09, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 1062-63, 67 S. Ct. 839, 843) relevant to forum non conveniens are different from the “connections” test recently created by the majority. Connections may be relevant to jurisdiction, but, of course, jurisdiction must be conceded in order to effect dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. Finally, I point out that ordinarily when this court has reversed the appellate court’s order of dismissal on jurisdictional grounds it has remanded the cause to the appellate court for further proceedings. (See Kemner v. Monsanto Co. (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 223.) I fail to see any justification for the precipitous action taken here.