Oruta v. B.E.W.
2016 IL App (1st) 152735
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Larry Oruta, acting pro se, filed a series of largely unintelligible complaints and post-judgment motions tied to workers’ compensation awards and unrelated claims (e.g., rental car overcharges), all in Cook County Case No. 11-L-8803.
- Oruta obtained an $80,000 garnishment/turnover order based on a nonexistent judgment; the trial court later vacated that turnover and ordered return of any funds.
- The trial court found Oruta in civil contempt for failing to return $80,000 and ordered incarceration until he purged the contempt; he was later released.
- The appellate court previously dismissed three separate appeals by Oruta in this same litigation for lack of jurisdiction or other procedural defects.
- In the instant consolidated appeals, Oruta challenged (among other things) the trial court’s denial for lack of jurisdiction of motions concerning an Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission bond and sought default judgments related to service issues.
- The appellate court dismissed the consolidated appeals for lack of jurisdiction and for Oruta’s repeated failures to comply with Illinois Supreme Court rules for appellate briefs and record presentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court had jurisdiction over claims related to an IWCC bond and awards | Oruta argued Cook County had jurisdiction and sought return of the alleged workers’ compensation bond/proceeds | Trial court: lacked jurisdiction over the bond/Commission matters; Oruta failed to follow statutory procedures for review | Court held it lacked jurisdiction because Oruta did not show compliance with statutory procedures for review of Commission decisions and no proof the bond/proceeds remained or were payable to him |
| Whether appellant complied with appellate briefing rules (table of contents/appendix) | Oruta urged review despite defective appendix and missing table of contents | Defendants argued briefing and appendix do not comply with Supreme Court Rule 342 and material outside the record must be disregarded | Court dismissed (in part) for failure to include a proper table of contents/appendix and for including materials not in the record |
| Whether appellant cited the record in argument as required | Oruta presented arguments but provided no volume/page citations to the record | Defendants relied on absence of record citations to challenge the reliability of factual assertions | Court held Oruta failed to cite the record as required by Rule 341(h)(7) and may disregard arguments; dismissal appropriate under court’s discretion |
| Timeliness/finality of prior appeals and appealable orders (including contempt orders and turnover vacatur) | Oruta sought review of various orders (turnover vacatur, contempt, purported orders reopening proceedings) | Appellate court noted prior appeals were untimely or sought review of nonfinal orders; some appeals were moot because incarceration had terminated | Court repeatedly found lack of jurisdiction: prior appeals involved nonfinal orders or untimely notices of appeal; thus appellate review was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Epstein v. Galuska, 362 Ill. App. 3d 36 (App. Ct. Ill.) (court may dismiss pro se appeal for failure to follow supreme court rules)
- Keener v. City of Herrin, 235 Ill. 2d 338 (Ill. 2009) (appellate court will not consider matters outside the record)
- Rojas v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 406 Ill. App. 3d 965 (App. Ct. Ill.) (circuit court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over Commission decisions is limited by statutory procedures)
- Esquivel v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 402 Ill. App. 3d 156 (App. Ct. Ill.) (statutory steps required to perfect review in circuit court)
- Fender v. Town of Cicero, 347 Ill. App. 3d 46 (App. Ct. Ill.) (appellate court may dismiss appeals for failure to follow supreme court rules)
- Collier v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 248 Ill. App. 3d 1088 (App. Ct. Ill.) (failure to comply with appellate rules can warrant dismissal)
- Hubeny v. Chairse, 305 Ill. App. 3d 1038 (App. Ct. Ill.) (materials not in the record must be disregarded on appeal)