Gatz v. Brown
2017 IL App (1st) 160579
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Randall Gatz filed a civil case in Cook County and paid a $567 filing fee that included a $10 children’s waiting room fee (Room Fee); he later sued on behalf of a putative class of all who paid the Room Fee in the past five years.
- Gatz argued the Room Fee is effectively a litigation tax because it is imposed on all civil litigants regardless of whether they use the waiting room.
- He claimed the fee violates the Illinois Constitution’s free access, due process, uniformity, and equal protection clauses and sought declaratory and injunctive relief plus refunds.
- Defendants (the Cook County Clerk and Treasurer) moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615, arguing the Room Fee funds a service related to court administration and is constitutional.
- The trial court granted the motion and dismissed with prejudice; Gatz appealed.
- The appellate court treated the challenge as a facial attack and affirmed dismissal, holding the Room Fee relates to court operation and withstands uniformity/equal protection scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Room Fee violates the free access/due process clauses as an unrelated litigation tax | Gatz: fee is not tied to necessary court operation; most payers never use the waiting room, so it functions as a tax | Defs: waiting room is an ancillary court service that aids court administration and may be funded by filing fees | Fee upheld — Court: waiting room relates to operation/maintenance of courts and furthers administration of justice |
| Whether the Room Fee violates uniformity and equal protection as overinclusive/nonuniform | Gatz: fee is charged to many (including corporations) who cannot use or benefit from the waiting room; therefore classification is unreasonable | Defs: fee is limited to civil litigants (a real difference from nonusers) and bears a reasonable relation to legislative objective | Fee upheld — Court: classification based on real and substantial difference and reasonably related to objective |
| Proper standard of review and scope (facial vs as-applied) | Gatz: advance both facial and as-applied challenges | Defs: challenge is facial; appellate court limited review to facial challenge | Court: treated it as a facial challenge (most difficult standard) and rejected it; noted as-applied challenge would also fail |
| Remedy sought (refund/unjust enrichment) | Gatz: refund of fees collected and unjust enrichment claim | Defs: constitutional justification defeats refund claim | Claim for refund/unjust enrichment fails because constitutional claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Crocker v. Finley, 99 Ill. 2d 444 (invalidated a filing fee funding general welfare programs as unrelated to court operations)
- Boynton v. Kusper, 112 Ill. 2d 356 (held charge on marriage-license applicants unconstitutional where relation to county clerk service was too remote)
- Ali v. Danaher, 47 Ill. 2d 231 (upheld a law-library fee as benefiting administration of justice even if not every litigant used it)
- Primeco Personal Communications v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 196 Ill. 2d 70 (narrow holding about fees operating as rent payments; court limited its scope in later cases)
- Geja’s Cafe v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 153 Ill. 2d 239 (uniformity-clause test: real/substantial difference and reasonable relation to legislative objective)
- Arangold Corp. v. Zehnder, 204 Ill. 2d 142 (presumption of constitutionality; challenger must clearly establish invalidity)
- In re M.T., 221 Ill. 2d 517 (explaining difficulty of successful facial challenges)
- Pooh-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook, 232 Ill. 2d 463 (procedural standards for section 2-615 and caution about facial invalidation)
- Rose v. Pucinski, 321 Ill. App. 3d 92 (upheld fees used to pay court-system expenses where they relate to operation/maintenance)