Doe v. Parrillo
2020 IL App (1st) 191286
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Plaintiff (Doe) sued defendant (Parrillo) for multiple physical assaults and an alleged sexual assault; case set for jury trial after years of discovery.
- On the eve of trial defense counsel Muth filed an emergency continuance motion citing her mother’s illness and two unavailable witnesses; a revised motion (filed the morning of trial) included an affidavit from Parrillo falsely stating he flew to Florida for his father’s hospitalization.
- The presiding judge’s local GAO limited 30–60 day continuances to the Law Division presiding judge; the trial judge (Varga) declined to rule and continued trial only overnight to allow defense another chance to seek the presiding judge’s relief.
- On day two, defense counsel largely refused to participate in voir dire/trial and did not secure a court reporter; plaintiff testified, medical records, photos, and defendant’s text messages were admitted, and the jury returned $1,000,000 compensatory and $8,000,000 punitive damages.
- Post-trial Parrillo admitted the Florida affidavit was false and moved for a new trial; the trial court denied relief.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of a continuance and the conduct of an ex parte trial (finding defense counsel voluntarily abstained and waived many errors), but reduced punitive damages from $8,000,000 to $1,000,000 on due-process grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial/refusal to rule on continuance | GAO 16‑2 does not strip trial judge of discretion; Varga could have granted short continuance | GAO limits 30–60 day continuances to presiding judge; defense had multiple chances but mishandled filings | No abuse of discretion; counsel had opportunities and made procedural errors; trial judge reasonably limited relief |
| Trial conducted without defendant/counsel present and no court reporter | Proceeding without defendant violated due process; absence prevented defense and hampers appeal | Defendant and counsel had notice/opportunity but voluntarily abstained; civil trials may proceed ex parte with notice | No due process violation; absence was voluntary; failure to secure reporter is appellant’s burden |
| Jury instructions & evidentiary rulings (including medical records) | Judge excluded defense from instruction conference; instructions and records were improper/prejudicial | Defense waived objections by not participating or objecting/tendering remedial instructions at conference | Waived: absent contemporaneous objections or record, appellate review is precluded |
| Excessiveness of damages (compensatory and punitive) | $1M compensatory and $8M punitive excessive given record and lack of defense/transcript | Injuries (including alleged sexual assault), photos, texts and medical records support awards; punitive justified by reprehensible conduct | Compensatory awards affirmed as within range; punitive reduced to $1M (from $8M) as excessive under Gore/Campbell guideposts |
Key Cases Cited
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (Illinois Supreme Court) (standards for judging judicial bias)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. Supreme Court) (when judicial remarks create disqualifying bias)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Illinois Supreme Court) (appellant’s burden to provide a complete record on appeal)
- Corral v. Mervis Indus., Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144 (Illinois Supreme Court) (presumption that trial court acted properly when no transcript)
- Richardson v. Chapman, 175 Ill. 2d 98 (Illinois Supreme Court) (standards for excessive compensatory damages)
- BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. Supreme Court) (three guideposts for reviewing punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. Supreme Court) (due-process limits on punitive damages)