Janousek v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
44 N.E.3d 501
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Janousek formed BIG with Slotkys in 1999; Katten signed BIG’s articles of organization.
- October 2007, Janousek is terminated; Slotkys allegedly freeze him out of BIG and BIG’s finances.
- Shortly after, Slotkys form BIG III to purchase debt and compete with BIG; Janousek alleges misappropriation and unfair conduct.
- June 19, 2009, Janousek’s attorney warns of suit unless compensated; July 7, 2009, Janousek files suit against the Slotkys.
- Katten and Richard represent the Slotkys in the BIG litigation; Katten later represented Slotkys despite Janousek’s motion to disqualify.
- January 2011–October 2011: discovery in underlying case and depositions occur; June 2012 Janousek files two-count aiding-and-abetting claim against Katten and Richard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 2-year limit begin under 13-214.3(b)? | Janousek argues discovery tolling delays accrual until discovery in underlying suit. | Katten and Richard contend accrual occurred by July 2009 based on injury and wrongful cause. | Limitations began by July 2009; discovery did not toll. |
| Is knowledge of injury sufficient to start the clock against all related claims? | Janousek says only later knowledge of defendants’ role tolls the period. | Defendant argues first knowledge of injury and wrongful cause starts the period for all related claims. | Knowledge of injury and wrongful cause starts the period; claims not tolled by later discovery. |
| Does attorney-client privilege or discovery delay toll the statute? | Privilege and withholding documents delayed uncovering defendants’ role, so tolling should apply. | Privilege does not toll discovery; diligent inquiry after knowledge ends tolling. | Privilege does not toll; diligent inquiry after knowledge does not pause the limit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill. 2d 161 (Ill. 1981) (discovery rule starts when injury is known and wrongfully caused)
- Castello v. Kalis, 352 Ill. App. 3d 736 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2004) (knowledge of injury and wrongful cause triggers statute; not necessary to know defendant)
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill.2d 407 (Ill. 1981) (discovery rule; burden to inquire after knowledge of injury)
- LaManna v. G.D. Searle & Co., 204 Ill. App. 3d 211 (Ill. App. 1990) (suspicion alone not sufficient; need reasonable knowledge of wrongful causation)
- Evanston Insurance Co. v. Riseborough, 2014 IL 114271 (Ill. 2014) (discovery rule applies to attorney malpractice claims arising from professional services)