Gillard v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital
143 N.E.3d 213
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- On Sept. 26, 2016, Gillard shoved a Northwestern Memorial Hospital security guard, was trespassed and later convicted at bench trial of criminal battery; she received court supervision and restricted access to the hospital.
- Two days after her arrest Gillard (pro se) filed this civil suit alleging defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and false light related to the trespass notice and her arrest; she sought progressively larger damages through multiple amended complaints.
- The circuit court dismissed successive complaints for failure to plead requisite facts and for procedural failures (including multiple dismissals for want of prosecution and repeated failure to respond to dismissal briefing); Gillard repeatedly filed motions to substitute judges and other “emergency” filings.
- After leave to file a fourth amended complaint, the court dismissed it with prejudice for insufficient factual pleading under section 2‑615 and as to one defendant because that contractor was not on site at the time.
- Gillard moved to reinstate, arguing recusal under Rule 63 based on her separate lawsuit against the trial judge; the motion was denied. She appealed the denial and the dismissal. Several defendants moved for Rule 375 sanctions, arguing a pattern of frivolous serial litigation.
- The appellate court affirmed both the dismissal and denial of reinstatement, found multiple procedural defaults and meritless claims, and imposed administrative sanctions procedures (referral to the Executive Committee recommending gatekeeping for future civil appeals by Gillard).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the dismissals of the 4th amended complaint appropriate (sufficiency of pleadings under §2‑615)? | Gillard contended her complaints stated defamation, IIED, NIED, and false light claims. | Defendants argued the complaints were conclusory, failed to allege falsity or required elements, and were barred by Gillard’s battery conviction. | Court affirmed: complaints lacked required factual allegations for each claim; dismissal with prejudice proper. |
| Did the court err in denying Gillard’s motions to reinstate based on Rule 63 recusal? | Gillard argued Judge McWilliams was disqualified under Rule 63 because of Gillard’s separate suit against the judge. | Defendants argued Rule 63 does not permit a party to force recusal and Gillard’s tactic improperly sought to evade statutory substitution procedure. | Court affirmed: Rule 63 does not provide a mechanism for forced substitution; section 2‑1001 is proper route and Gillard’s tactic was improper. |
| Did Gillard waive/forfeit appellate arguments by failing to litigate them below or by filing deficient briefs? | Gillard raised various constitutional and causation theories on appeal. | Defendants argued many arguments were waived (not raised below) or forfeited (not in opening brief) and briefs violated Rule 341. | Court held most arguments were waived/forfeited and Gillard’s briefs violated Supreme Court rules; nonetheless court addressed merits and affirmed. |
| Are Rule 375 sanctions warranted for frivolous appeal and serial litigation? | Gillard disputed that the appeal was frivolous and opposed sanctions. | Defendants (except Starbucks) argued appeal was frivolous and part of an egregious pattern of meritless filings warranting sanctions/gatekeeping. | Court granted sanctions in part: referred case to Appellate Court Executive Committee recommending administrative gatekeeping procedures for Gillard’s future civil appeals (and warned of further sanctions). |
Key Cases Cited
- General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163 (appellate jurisdiction limited to matters specified in notice of appeal)
- Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp., 76 Ill. 2d 427 (an unspecified order is reviewable if it is part of the procedural progression to the appealed judgment)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403 (standard of review for section 2‑615 motions; review de novo)
- First Midwest Bank, N.A. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 218 Ill. 2d 326 (plaintiff must plead factual support for each element to survive a 2‑615 motion)
- Dreisilker Electric Motors, Inc. v. Rainbow Electric Co., 203 Ill. App. 3d 304 (definition of frivolous appeal under Rule 375)