Cooney v. Magnabosco, 943 N.E.2d 290

Cooney appealed involuntary dismissal of her complaint under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 2-619 after alleging DCFS used uncertified reporters to report proceedings under the Act.
Magnabosco, not certified, allegedly reported the DCFS proceeding, prompting Cooney to sue Magnabosco, DCFS, and IDFPR in 2009 for Act violations.
Plaintiff asserted Counts I–III: breach of the Act, aiding and abetting violations, and a declaration that defendants violated the Act.
Magnabosco submitted a certification stating she transcribed by listening to an audio tape, not by using a certified shorthand reporting system; plaintiff sought discovery to challenge this.
Trial court granted Magnabosco’s 2-615/2-619 motions, concluding Magnabosco did not practice shorthand reporting as defined by the Act and citing sovereign immunity to bar claims against IDFPR and DCFS; denied leave to amend.
On appeal, Cooney argued the Act was misinterpreted, and the court erred in denying leave to amend; court affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cooney pled a Section 23.1(b) claim.	Cooney contends Magnabosco practiced shorthand reporting or held herself out as such.	Defendants contend no private right of action exists under the Act or Magnabosco did not act as a certified shorthand reporter.	Cooney failed to plead a Section 23.1(b) claim; complaint dismissed.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend.	Amendment would cure pleading defects and add mandamus theory.	Amendment would not state a claim; mandamus improper and dependent on certifications not alleged.	Trial court did not abuse its discretion; amended pleading properly denied.
Whether the court properly rejected discovery to determine Magnabosco's transcription method and status.	Discovery was needed to determine Magnabosco’s transcription process and potential certification status.	Discovery would be futile; Magnabosco’s certification and method do not bring her within the statute.	Discovery rejected; Magnabosco's conduct not within the Act as pleaded.

Pooh-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook, 232 Ill. 2d 463 (2009) (de novo review of 2-615 dismissal; standards for sufficiency)
Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Illinois-Missouri Metropolitan District, 238 Ill. 2d 262 (2010) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent considerations)
In re Estate of Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d 519 (2010) (presumption against absurd results in statutory construction)
DOD Technologies v. Mesirow Insurance Services, Inc., 381 Ill. App. 3d 1042 (2008) (waiver and appellate review of issues not raised below; basis to affirm on record)
Lee v. Chicago Transit Authority, 152 Ill. 2d 432 (1992) (factors in determining whether to permit amendment to pleadings)