Arient v. Shaik
2015 IL App (1st) 133969
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Scott Arient sold his pet shop to Nazeer Shaik in 2008 but remained as an employee under an employment agreement; defendant later purchased the business via purchase and asset purchase agreements.
- Arient was terminated in June 2009; Shaik closed the shop in early 2011 and Arient sued for breach of the employment and purchase agreements and sought accounting and other relief.
- Shaik asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and conversion; after a jury trial the verdict was adverse to Arient on his claims and adverse to Shaik on his counterclaims, and the court entered an order reflecting no monetary award to either party.
- At trial Arient attempted to elicit testimony that Shaik’s brother-in-law, Dr. Ghouse, removed $500 cash nightly from the register; the court barred questions asserting a daily $500 removal because Dr. Ghouse did not testify and the evidence would be more prejudicial than probative under Ill. R. Evid. 403.
- Arient did not subpoena Dr. Ghouse, did not establish any reason for his absence at trial, and did not file a posttrial motion; he filed a notice of appeal within 30 days of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting questions that Dr. Ghouse took $500 nightly from the register | Arient: exclusion of that testimony was erroneous and warrants a new trial; he also urges consideration under plain-error because he avoided filing a written posttrial motion to avert a mistrial | Shaik: Arient forfeited the issue by failing to file a posttrial motion required in jury cases; the evidentiary ruling was within the court’s discretion | Held: Issue forfeited for appeal due to failure to file required posttrial motion; even if considered, the exclusion was not plain error given Dr. Ghouse’s absence and Rule 403 concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 83 Ill. 2d 344 (Illinois Supreme Court) (failure to specify grounds in posttrial motion waives issue after jury trial)
- Keen v. Davis, 38 Ill. 2d 280 (Illinois Supreme Court) (directed-verdict exception to posttrial-motion requirement)
- Robbins v. Professional Construction Co., 72 Ill. 2d 215 (Illinois Supreme Court) (discussing narrowness of directed-verdict exception)
- Leslie H. Allott Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, 112 Ill. App. 3d 136 (Illinois Appellate Court) (policy rationale: trial judge must have chance to reassess via posttrial motion)
- Nilsson v. NBD Bank of Illinois, 313 Ill. App. 3d 751 (Illinois Appellate Court) (failure to file posttrial motion after jury trial forfeits review)
- Wilbourn v. Cavalenes, 398 Ill. App. 3d 837 (Illinois Appellate Court) (plain-error doctrine applies rarely in civil cases; requires error that undermines trial integrity)
- Gillespie v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 135 Ill. 2d 363 (Illinois Supreme Court) (discussion of plain-error standards generally)