Nelson v. Chicago Park District
408 Ill. App. 3d 53
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- This is a consolidated appeal from a Cook County circuit court decision dismissing Latin II with prejudice and sanctioning the plaintiffs' attorneys under Rule 137.
- Latin II contends res judicata and the May 15, 2008 settlement release foreclose the action arising from CPD and Latin School's termination of the South Field Agreement.
- Latin I involved a TRO and a settlement over building a CPD-Latin School soccer field; the May 15, 2008 settlement released claims except as carve-outs for certain anti-ities, with dismissal contingent on execution of a termination agreement.
- The termination agreement (June 19, 2008) shifted CPD to reimburse Latin School and assume its remaining construction contracts; CPD paid $40,000 to Latin I plaintiffs.
- Latin II asserted claims about reimbursement of public funds and CPD’s contract assumptions, arguing they were void or voidable and not barred by the prior settlement.
- The trial court held res judicata barred Latin II and sanctioned the plaintiffs’ attorneys, and this appeal challenges those rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar Latin II? | Latin II argues no privity or identity of action with Latin I warrants preclusion. | CPD and Latin School contend privity, final merits judgment, and same transactional facts bar Latin II. | Yes; res judicata bars Latin II. |
| Do settlement-release terms bar Latin II? | Release does not bind absent parties or alter Latin II claims. | Release language and termination agreement extinguish Latin II claims. | Held in abeyance because res judicata already bars Latin II; release terms support that result. |
| Was Rule 137 sanctions against plaintiffs' attorneys proper? | Sanctions were improper because the action was grounded in reasonable legal theory. | Sanctions warranted due to lack of grounding and mischaracterizations in briefing. | Yes; sanctions proper. |
| Did the Illinois Citizen Participation Act bar the Rule 137 sanctions? | Act immunizes actions related to petitioning government and could bar sanctions. | Act does not apply to sanctions motions and would violate judicial rule authority. | No; Act does not bar Rule 137 sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill.2d 462 (2008) (res judicata requires final judgment on merits, privity, and same cause of action)
- Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 172 Ill.2d 325 (1996) (res judicata includes claims that could have been decided)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill.2d 290 (1998) (transactional test for identity of causes of action)
- Board of Education of Sunset Ridge School District No. 29 v. Village of Northbrook, 295 Ill.App.3d 909 (1998) (dismissal with prejudice constitutes final adjudication on merits)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (virtual representation limits on privity)
- Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996) (absent parties must be adequately represented in prior suit)
- South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Alabama, 526 U.S. 160 (1999) (absent party considerations in preclusion analysis)
- Marvel of Illinois, Inc. v. Marvel Contaminant Control Industries, Inc., 318 Ill.App.3d 856 (2001) (Rule 137 sanctions evidentiary basis and mischaracterizations)
- Yorulmazoglu v. Lake Forest Hospital, 359 Ill.App.3d 554 (2005) (privity analysis in res judicata)
- Keim v. Kalbfleisch, 57 Ill.App.3d 621 (1978) (final dismissal with prejudice as final adjudication)