Jordan v. Bangloria
966 N.E.2d 986
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Sean Jordan sued Hasib Bangloria for personal injury and property damage from an automobile collision; case transferred to mandatory arbitration with a hearing set for June 9, 2010.
- Hasib never appeared for deposition or at the arbitration; defense counsel was present at arbitration; an award of $5,000 in Sean's favor was entered with no costs.
- Hasib rejected the arbitration award on June 23, 2010; Sean moved to quash the rejection and to impose sanctions for bad-faith conduct and frivolous discovery objections.
- The trial court debarring the rejection, entering judgment on the award, and imposing $3,375 in attorney fees under Rule 219 and $3,175 under Rule 137 against defense counsel were entered on September 2, 2010.
- Hasib’s motion to reconsider was denied on November 12, 2010; Hasib and defense counsel appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60-day notice requirement for arbitration | Jordan asserts notice complied; hearing proceeded in absence of nonpresent party. | Bangloria argues lack of 60 days' notice voids judgment or sanctions. | Judgment not void; notice satisfaction upheld; sanctions proper. |
| Sanctions for failure to participate in good faith | Defendant and counsel failed to engage in good faith; sanctions appropriate under Rule 219(c). | Not disputed; argues limited to arbitration hearing conduct. | Sanctions for lack of good-faith participation affirmed. |
| Sanctions for frivolous objections to requests to admit | Objections were frivolous and warranted Rule 137 sanctions. | Objections were substantively reasonable under Rule 137. | Rule 137 sanctions against defense counsel affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Juszczyk v. Flores, 334 Ill. App. 3d 122 (2002) (60 days' notice issues render arbitration judgments voidable)
- Tiller v. Semonis, 263 Ill. App. 3d 653 (1994) (attorneys must track dates; lack of notice not excuse for nonappearance)
- Smith v. Gleash, 325 Ill. App. 3d 79 (2001) (sanctions may include attorney fees for misconduct in arbitration context)
- Walikonis v. Halsor, 306 Ill. App. 3d 811 (1999) (prospective debarring for conduct before arbitration can be abuse of discretion)
- Harris v. Hall, 15 Ill. App. 3d 599 (1973) (notices and obligations to attend hearings; credibility findings)
- Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 408 Ill. App. 3d 564 (2011) (de novo review standard for statutory/supreme court rule interpretations)