Dei v. Tumara Food Mart, Inc.
941 N.E.2d 920
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Plaintiff Dei filed suit in Cook County on June 7, 2007 arising from a February 17, 2007 slip-and-fall at Tumara Food Mart, Inc.
- The summons directed service on an agent at Tumara Food Mart, Inc., 2941 East 83rd Street, Chicago.
- Service on June 22, 2007 was effected on Ahmed Sylla, an employee at that location.
- Tumara did not appear; default was entered November 15, 2007 and damages were proved on January 4, 2008, yielding judgment in Dei’s favor.
- In August 2008, Tumara challenged service under section 2-204; discovery followed, and deposition evidence showed Sylla was not an authorized agent to accept service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on Sylla was proper under 2-204 | Dei argues Sylla was Tumara’s agent for service | Tumara contends Sylla was not an authorized agent | No; service on Sylla was improper under 2-204 |
| Whether the trial court properly quashed Dei’s subpoenas | Subpoenas sought relevant information on Sylla's role | Requests were irrelevant and harassing | Yes; court did not abuse discretion in quashing discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Megan v. L.B. Foster Co., 1 Ill.App.3d 1036 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1971) (service on receptionist may suffice if understood purport of service)
- Island Terrace Apartments v. Keystone Service Co., 35 Ill.App.3d 95 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1975) (agency prima facie proof; receptionist must understand import of service)
- Knapp v. Bulun, 392 Ill.App.3d 1018 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 2009) (paralegal not designated as agent; not proper service)
- Gurtz Electric Co. v. Kamenir, 10 Ill.App.3d 56 (Ill. App. 1973) (receptionist’s post-service conduct not controlling; abstract opinion but shows non‑agent status)
- Isaacs v. Shoreland Hotel, 40 Ill.App.2d 108 (Ill. App. 2d Dist. 1963) (notice to insurer not service on insured)
- Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill.2d 389 (1984) (necessity of sufficient record to review on appeal)