Oruta v. Biomat USA, Inc.
2017 IL App (1st) 152789
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Plaintiff Larry Oruta, pro se, sought to reinstate service/citation proceedings against Biomat USA, Inc. long after that defendant had been dismissed with prejudice by the trial court on January 14, 2013.
- On September 22, 2015 Oruta filed a motion to file a "service of summons * against Biomat USA previously returned." The trial court denied the motion on September 29, 2015, noting Biomat had been dismissed with prejudice in 2013.
- Oruta filed a notice of appeal the same day (Sept. 29, 2015) and later filed an amended notice on May 20, 2016.
- Oruta’s filings asserted a final judgment date of January 23, 2012 (and otherwise attempted to treat the 2013 dismissal as subject to current appellate review), but he did not file a timely appeal from that earlier final judgment.
- The appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the asserted 2012/2013 final judgment because Oruta failed to file a timely notice of appeal and the September 29, 2015 trial-court order was not an appealable order.
- The court found a pattern of frivolous, repetitive filings by Oruta in multiple prior appeals and ordered him to show cause within 30 days why sanctions under Ill. S. Ct. R. 375 should not be imposed; the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over the claimed final judgment/dismissal | Oruta argued the final judgment was entered Jan. 23, 2012 (or otherwise sought to appeal the trial court’s Sept. 29, 2015 denial to reinstate service/citations) | Biomat argued the dismissal occurred earlier and any appeal from that final judgment was untimely; the Sept. 29, 2015 order is not appealable | No jurisdiction: notice of appeal was untimely as to the earlier final judgment; the Sept. 29, 2015 order is not an appealable order |
| Whether the Sept. 29, 2015 order denying reinstatement is an appealable interlocutory order | Oruta treated the denial as appealable and sought appellate review | Biomat maintained the order was merely an observation that the defendant was already dismissed and not appealable | Held not appealable; court lacks a rule basis for appellate jurisdiction over that order |
| Whether appellate court may entertain a late attempt to revive appeal rights by filing new trial-court motions/subpoenas | Oruta attempted to use a post-dismissal motion to revive appellate rights | Biomat contended such motions do not revive expired appeal windows | Court held such devices do not resurrect abandoned appeal rights |
| Whether sanctions should be considered for plaintiff’s repeated filings | Oruta did not directly address sanctionability in the opinion | Biomat urged dismissal and implied filings were frivolous | Court concluded plaintiff’s history of repetitive, frivolous appeals warranted an order to show cause under Ill. S. Ct. R. 375(b); sanctions are being considered |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32 (appellant’s timely notice of appeal is the sole jurisdictional step)
- Dreisilker Electric Motors, Inc. v. Rainbow Electric Co., 203 Ill. App. 3d 304 (1990) (standard for determining frivolous appeals referenced for Rule 375 analysis)