Gakuba v. Kurtz, 39 N.E.3d 589

Pro se petitioner Peter Gakuba filed a verified petition under the Stalking No Contact Order Act seeking to disqualify assistant State’s Attorney Kate Kurtz from prosecuting him on aggravated criminal sexual abuse charges, alleging various contacts and past law‑enforcement entries into his rooms.
An emergency hearing on Nov. 25, 2013, resulted in denial of emergency relief (no emergency or course of conduct shown) and a plenary hearing was set; the case file was sealed by court order the next day.
Respondent’s counsel later appeared and moved to dismiss; Judge Gulley dismissed the petition on Dec. 2, 2013, for failure to plead a required course of conduct under the Act.
Petitioner filed motions to reconsider, to unseal the file, and to substitute judges; those motions were denied (substitution denied by Judge McGraw).
The trial court granted respondent’s sanctions motion; on appeal the court affirmed dismissal, upheld sealing (due to incomplete record), denied substitution challenge, refused to strike petitioner’s brief (but disregarded improper material), and directed submission of appellant‑incurred fees for consideration of appellate sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal without plenary hearing	Gakuba: dismissal denied his right to present evidence and access to courts; he was entitled to a plenary hearing	Kurtz: petition failed to allege the Act’s required course of conduct; dismissal appropriate after emergency hearing	Affirmed dismissal; appellant forfeited legal challenge by failing to cite authority and record support, so court declined to consider merits
Sealing of court file	Gakuba: sealing was improper and done without notice or respondent’s motion	Kurtz: (implicitly) sealing was within court’s discretion; record shows no respondent motion and court gave a sealing order	Affirmed sealing; appellate record lacked transcript or substitute showing basis, so court presumed order proper and declined review
Motion to substitute judges	Gakuba: judges were biased; substitution should have been granted	Kurtz: ruling reviewed for manifest weight; procedures followed	Affirmed denial; no transcript or substitute provided, so no basis to find decision against manifest weight
Sanctions on appellant	Gakuba: no response on appeal to sanctions	Kurtz: appeal is frivolous and intended to harass/delay; sanctions appropriate under Rule 375(b)	Court found sanctions warranted; directed respondent to submit fees/expenses for appellate sanction determination

Skidis v. Industrial Comm’n, 309 Ill. App. 3d 720 (1999) (court will not research undeveloped arguments for appellant)
Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984) (appellant bears burden to provide complete record; gaps resolved against appellant)
Doe v. Carlson, 250 Ill. App. 3d 570 (1993) (public presumption of access to records but court may impound when interests for restriction outweigh access)
Jacobs v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 291 Ill. App. 3d 239 (1997) (denial of substitution of judge reviewed for manifest weight of evidence)
Fields v. Lake Hillcrest Corp., 335 Ill. App. 3d 457 (2002) (sanctions under appellate rule are discretionary to punish abusive litigation conduct)