Mashal v. City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112341

Mashal filed a 2000 class action against the City of Chicago alleging a fly-by ticketing practice violated state statute and Chicago ordinance; the class was certified in 2002 and decertified in 2008 after a 2005 partial summary judgment addressed the legal issue but not liability for all class members.
Judge Siebel granted Mashal partial summary judgment in 2005 declaring fly-by tickets illegal under statute/ordinance; he did not decide liability for any class member.
Judge Palmer decertified the class in 2008, finding that credibility issues and the need for individual trials would predominate, and that the earlier ruling did not resolve liability for all members.
Mashal sought Rule 308 interlocutory review of four certified questions about whether certain orders constituted a “decision on the merits” that would preclude decertification; the appellate court answered the questions in favor of the City.
This Court set the test for a “decision on the merits” as a complete liability determination based on evidence that establishes a right to recover for at least one class member, but short of a final judgment, and it answered the four questions in the negative except for the first, which was answered with the definition above.
The case remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What constitutes a decision on the merits under 2-802(a)?	Mashal argues a broader understanding of decision on the merits.	City argues a narrower or different standard.	A decision on the merits requires a complete liability determination for at least one class member, short of final judgment.
Was Judge Siebel’s December 2005 partial summary judgment a decision on the merits precluding decertification?	Mashal contends the ruling determined rights/liabilities and foreclosed decertification.	City contends the ruling did not determine liability for all or any class member.	No; not a decision on the merits precluding decertification.
Was Judge Siebel’s denial of the City’s affirmative defenses a decision on the merits?	Mashal argues it ended the litigation on the merits.	City argues it did not resolve liability, only defenses.	No; not a decision on the merits.
Did Judge Palmer’s statute-of-limitations ruling constitute a decision on the merits?	Mashal contends it resolved liability on time-barred claims.	City argues it did not decide liability, only a statute-of-limitations issue.	No; not a decision on the merits.

Rosolowski v. Clark Refining & Marketing, 383 Ill. App. 3d 420 (Ill. App. 3d 2008) (decision on the merits distinguished from final judgment; liability determination based on evidence)
Barliant v. Follett Corp., 74 Ill. 2d 226 (1978) (early class-action stewardship; change in circumstances can justify decertification)
Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005) (damages require individualized proof; impacts commonality)
Smith v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 223 Ill. 2d 441 (2006) (class action certification; efficiency and fair adjudication; risks of minitrials)
Downing v. Chicago Transit Authority, 162 Ill. 2d 70 (1994) (summary judgment based on statute of limitations not a merits adjudication)
Vizcaino v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, 173 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 1999) (illustrates ‘decision on the merits’ concept in pre-amendment Rule 23)