2023 IL App (2d) 220086
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- Stacy and Dru Goodman separated after Stacy sought a divorce in 2013; surveillance of Stacy began in 2013 and continued for years, involving private investigators, extensive videotaping, and allegedly over $1.295 million in expenditures.
- Stacy filed for and obtained a plenary order of protection in 2017 based on obsessive surveillance; the appellate court affirmed that the surveillance caused emotional distress and that its duration/scope could exceed reasonable investigation.
- After the dissolution, Stacy sued Dru (amended five-count complaint): Count I — intrusion upon seclusion; Count II — intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Counts III–V — private causes of action under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (negligent abuse, willful/wanton negligent abuse, willful/wanton intentional abuse).
- The trial court (after motions and reconsideration) dismissed the Domestic Violence Act claims (no implied private right) and later entered summary judgment for Dru on the IIED claim, holding the absolute litigation privilege barred it; summary judgment also dismissed intrusion claims as time-barred.
- Stacy appealed the summary-judgment dismissal of IIED and the dismissal of the Act-based counts. The appellate court affirmed: the absolute litigation privilege barred IIED, and no implied private right of action exists under the Act because the Act’s remedies are adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the absolute litigation privilege bars Stacy's IIED claim | Privilege doesn't apply because surveillance was excessive, obsessive, partly pre-litigation, initiated by third parties, and not sufficiently pertinent to divorce issues | Surveillance was undertaken in anticipation of/diversion to divorce litigation (cohabitation/adultery), reports were routed to counsel, and the privilege covers conduct before/during/after litigation regardless of motive | Privilege applies as a matter of law; IIED claim barred |
| Whether the Illinois Domestic Violence Act implies a private right of action for the alleged abuse | Implied private cause of action is necessary to provide an adequate remedy (IIED barred by privilege) | The Act provides comprehensive civil/criminal remedies (orders of protection, monetary losses, contempt/criminal penalties) so no implied private right is necessary | No implied private right; counts III–V dismissed because the Act’s enforcement scheme is adequate |
| Whether the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim (surveillance inside marital home) is time-barred | Plaintiff contended the claim was timely or otherwise actionable | Defendant argued the two-year limitations period barred the intrusion claim | Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant; intrusion claim barred by statute of limitations |
| Whether determination of the privilege is a factual (jury) question or legal (court) question | Plaintiff argued applicability presented factual issues (intent, scope, pertinency) for the jury | Defendant argued applicability is a legal question for the court to decide | Court held privilege determination is a matter of law and decided it; privilege applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Kurczaba v. Pollock, 318 Ill. App. 3d 686 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (explains policy behind absolute litigation privilege for counsel’s conduct)
- Malevitis v. Friedman, 323 Ill. App. 3d 1129 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (privilege can apply to conduct not confined to specific issues so long as related to litigation)
- Fisher v. Lexington Health Care, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 455 (Ill. 1999) (standards for implying private right of action; necessity requirement)
- Metzger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30 (Ill. 2004) (statutory interpretation principles; implied private right of action is a question of law)
- Abbasi v. Paraskevoulakos, 187 Ill. 2d 386 (Ill. 1999) (declining to imply private right where common-law remedies suffice)
- Sawyer Realty Group, Inc. v. Jarvis Corp., 89 Ill. 2d 379 (Ill. 1982) (four-factor test for implying private cause of action)