Gleeson Asphalt, Inc. v. City of Collinsville, Illinois
2017 IL App (5th) 170059
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Gleeson Asphalt sued the City of Collinsville in St. Clair County for unpaid work and additional expenses on two Collinsville street projects (Clinton and Camelot). The projects lay partly in St. Clair County and partly in Madison County.
- Gleeson alleges delays caused by the city and that the city (through its engineer, Oates & Associates, and street department) agreed to pay additional expenses separate from Gleeson’s state contract; damages claimed totaled about $159,525.81.
- The City moved to transfer venue to Madison County under 735 ILCS 5/2-103(a), noting the city’s principal office and the engineer’s offices were in Madison County and arguing the transactions occurred there.
- Gleeson opposed, alleging key communications and the city street department were located in St. Clair County and that Gleeson’s office in St. Clair County received communications and mobilized labor and materials there.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding part of the underlying occurrences were alleged to have occurred in St. Clair County. The City appealed the denial.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that on the pleadings Gleeson’s well-pleaded allegations that part of the transaction occurred in St. Clair County satisfy the transactional prong of the municipal venue statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in St. Clair County is proper under §2-103(a)’s transactional prong | Some part of the transaction occurred in St. Clair County: communications, mobilization from Gleeson’s St. Clair office, and city street department activity | Venue is improper because the city’s principal office and key actors/transactions were in Madison County; mailings/preliminary acts to St. Clair are insufficient | Held: Venue proper in St. Clair County; well-pleaded allegations that part of the transaction occurred there must be accepted on the pleadings |
Key Cases Cited
- Rensing v. Merck & Co., 367 Ill. App. 3d 1046 (Ill. App. Ct.) (framework for analyzing transactional venue: nature of claim and where it springs into existence)
- Boxdorfer v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 339 Ill. App. 3d 335 (Ill. App. Ct.) (transaction occurs where significant negotiations, signing, performance, or events plaintiff must prove took place)
- Superior Structures Co. v. City of Sesser, 277 Ill. App. 3d 653 (Ill. App. Ct.) (contract execution or significant negotiation in a county can support venue there)
- Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144 (Ill.) (appellate review respects trial court’s factual findings unless against manifest weight)
- Kaiser v. Doll-Pollard, 398 Ill. App. 3d 652 (Ill. App. Ct.) (at pleading stage, well-pleaded facts of plaintiff’s complaint are taken as true)
- Wieseman v. Kienstra, Inc., 237 Ill. App. 3d 721 (Ill. App. Ct.) (pleadings-control rule for motions to transfer venue)