Hernandez v. Pritikin, 2012 IL 113054

Hernandez filed a 2005 legal malpractice action against Bernstein, Grazian, Volpe, and Bernstein & Grazian for failing to pursue third-party or product-liability claims.
An amended 2005 complaint added a theory that Bernstein & Lenz failed to advise or sue Spector & Lenz for third-party claims; discovery-rule arguments were later added.
A 2005 underlying product-liability action was time-barred, which plaintiffs argued affected the timing and viability of their malpractice claim.
Judge Suriano dismissed the original malpractice complaint in 2006 but allowed an amended complaint; the written order did not explicitly state prejudice or finality.
Judge Budzinski denied the amended complaint in 2007, but the written order stated only that the motion to dismiss was denied; plaintiffs subsequently dismissed the case in 2009 and refilled the malpractice action in 2009.
The Supreme Court held defendants failed to prove a final judgment for res judicata purposes and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the August 7, 2006 dismissal constitutes a final judgment for res judicata.	Hernandez argues the order allowed amendment and did not dismiss with prejudice, so no final judgment forecloses refiling.	Bernstein asserts the August 7, 2006 ruling, together with subsequent orders, constitutes a final adjudication.	No final judgment established; res judicata not proven.
Whether Budzinski's March 28, 2007 order was a final adjudication for res judicata.	Hernandez contends Budzinski’s denial of the motion to dismiss left the amended complaint alive.	Bernstein maintains Budzinski’s ruling was final and preclusive.	Not a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata.
Whether the record shows claim-splitting and whether res judicata bars refiling.	Hernandez argues the claims were a single theory of negligence and the August order did not bar amendment.	Bernstein contends the two-stage pleadings and theories amount to claim-splitting barred by res judicata.	Court rejected claim-splitting as a basis to bar refiling.
Whether the appellate court’s reasoning was correct given the circuit court rulings.	Hernandez asserts the circuit court rulings prevented final adjudication required for res judicata.	Bernstein argues the August 7, 2006 order and related proceedings foreclose the claims.	Appellate court affirmed; Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its reasoning.

Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill. 2d 325 (1996) (limits on claim-splitting and final judgments for res judicata under Illinois law)
Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462 (2008) (final adjudication requirement for res judicata; multiple rulings can affect finality)
Matejczyk v. City of Chicago, 397 Ill. App. 3d 1 (2009) (analysis of finality when orders dismiss with leave to replead; interplay with res judicata)
Piagentini v. Ford Motor Co., 387 Ill. App. 3d 887 (2009) (dismissal with leave to amend does not necessarily end litigation under a single theory)
Flores v. Dugan, 91 Ill. 2d 108 (1982) (defining final judgment and its effect on appellate review)