JL Properties Group B, LLC v. Pritzker
185 N.E.3d 780
Ill. App. Ct.2021Background:
- In March 2020 Governor Pritzker issued a 30‑day disaster proclamation under the Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act (EMAA) and multiple subsequent 30‑day proclamations; he also issued executive orders suspending commencement and enforcement of residential eviction actions as part of the COVID‑19 response.
- Three landlords filed suit challenging the eviction moratoria and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; their complaint pleaded ten counts (constitutional and statutory claims), and the Governor moved to dismiss several counts under Ill. R. 2‑615.
- The Will County circuit court granted the Governor’s motion and dismissed counts I, II, III, and VI with prejudice, reserved other counts, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, and included Rule 304(a) language on the dismissals.
- On appeal the plaintiffs challenged the dismissal of those four counts and the denial of a preliminary injunction; the appellate court consolidated appeals and received amicus briefing from tenant‑advocacy organizations.
- The appellate court (majority) held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Rule 304(a) dismissals because the ten counts seek the same relief and the dismissed counts are intertwined with pending counts, and it affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction on the ground that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored the State.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s dismissal of counts I, II, III, and VI under Rule 304(a) | Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals as final and immediately appealable under Rule 304(a) | Governor relied on Rule 304(a) language but argued the order was not final because other counts seeking identical relief remained | Court dismissed this part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction: counts are different iterations of the same claim and are inextricably intertwined with pending counts, so the dismissals were not final under Rule 304(a) |
| Whether the court should resolve the Governor’s authority to issue successive 30‑day disaster proclamations under the EMAA | Plaintiffs argued the Governor lacked power to issue successive proclamations (though they had earlier disclaimed that argument) | Governor argued he could issue successive proclamations while a disaster continues | Appellate court declined to decide the question (not properly raised below or on appeal) |
| Whether the EMAA authorized the eviction‑related moratoria (statutory authority / takings / separation of powers challenges) | Plaintiffs argued moratoria exceeded statutory authority, amounted to a taking (constructive possession) and usurped legislative/judicial functions | Governor argued section 7 of the EMAA authorizes measures controlling occupancy and movement during a disaster and did not constitute a taking or unlawful encroachment | Majority did not resolve these merits on appeal (lack of jurisdiction on dismissals); special concurrence argued the EMAA authorized the moratoria and that plaintiffs lacked likelihood of success on the merits |
| Whether a preliminary injunction enjoining the moratoria should have been granted | Plaintiffs argued they would suffer irreparable harm and were likely to succeed on the merits | Governor argued public‑health interests and the public welfare strongly favored maintaining the moratoria; harms to public outweighed landlords’ harms | Court affirmed denial of preliminary injunction: even assuming plaintiffs could show other elements, the balance of hardships and public interest favored the State, precluding injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- DeBouse v. Bayer, 235 Ill. 2d 544 (Ill. 2009) (courts should decline to answer certified questions that exceed the litigation's scope)
- Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, 225 Ill. 2d 52 (Ill. 2006) (standards of review and prima facie showing for preliminary injunctions)
- Hartlein v. Illinois Power Co., 151 Ill. 2d 142 (Ill. 1992) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy)
- Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL 118781 (Ill. 2016) (Rule 304(a) finality; dismissal of nonseverable, overlapping counts is not immediately appealable)
- Lozman v. Putnam, 328 Ill. App. 3d 761 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (appellate jurisdiction and abuse of discretion principles regarding Rule 304(a) certification)