People ex rel. Rahn v. Vohra
2017 IL App (2d) 160953
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Relator Gregory Rahn (former NIU visiting professor) obtained leave to file a pro se quo warranto complaint seeking to oust Promod Vohra as dean of NIU’s College of Engineering and Engineering Technology, alleging Vohra lacked required qualifications and committed misconduct (plagiarism, favoritism, intimidation of whistleblowers).
- The Attorney General and county State’s Attorney declined to pursue quo warranto; Rahn proceeded as relator. Rahn previously litigated federal claims against Vohra and NIU; those claims resulted in judgment against Rahn (Rahn v. Board of Trustees, affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, cert. denied).
- After leave to file, Vohra moved to dismiss arguing (1) the action was moot because he resigned as dean before trial and (2) res judicata barred the claim as based on the same operative facts as Rahn’s prior federal suit; he also argued Rahn lacked standing.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint as moot because Vohra had resigned and ouster was no longer available; the court denied reconsideration and dismissed with prejudice.
- On appeal, the Second District held the case was not moot because section 18-108 authorizes fines as well as ouster, but affirmed the dismissal on the alternative ground that Rahn lacked standing to bring quo warranto.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness: Does defendant’s resignation render quo warranto moot? | Rahn: No — section 18-108 allows fines and costs even if ouster is unavailable; prior cases (Botts, Datacom Systems) support proceeding to judgment. | Vohra: Yes — resignation removed the only relief sought (ouster); any remaining issues are speculative or moot. | Court: Not moot — because section 18-108 permits fines/costs, resignation does not automatically moot a quo warranto seeking punishment. |
| Nature of quo warranto: Civil or criminal? | Rahn: Quo warranto retains criminal character; resignation should not avoid prosecution. | Vohra: Quo warranto is civil in Illinois; historic references to criminal form are dictum. | Court: Quo warranto in Illinois is a civil remedy; prior dicta about criminal form are historical. |
| Effect of judgment on contracts and res judicata: Would adjudication aid Rahn or invalidate contracts? | Rahn: A finding would invalidate contracts signed by defendant and help future litigation. | Vohra: Federal judgment and de facto officer doctrine prevent invalidation; res judicata bars re-litigation of same core facts. | Court: Contracts would not be invalidated (de facto officer doctrine); Rahn’s federal litigation outcome and res judicata limit relief. |
| Standing: Does Rahn have a private interest distinct from the public to bring quo warranto? | Rahn: Yes — prior harms, unique damages, continuing effects, and prior litigation show distinct interest. | Vohra: No — Rahn lacks an interest in the office itself and is not a fellow officer or board member; his harms are ordinary public or personal claims. | Court: No standing — Rahn lacks the required distinct, direct, substantial, and imminent interest in the office; dismissal affirmed on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Courtney v. Botts, 376 Ill. 476 (Ill. 1941) (quo warranto is not rendered moot by expiration/resignation when statute authorizes fines in addition to ouster)
- People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1991) (quo warranto may proceed where court can impose fines; mootness argument rejected)
- People ex rel. Black v. Dukes, 96 Ill. 2d 273 (Ill. 1983) (appeal dismissed as moot where plaintiff sought only ouster and defendant resigned)
- Rahn v. Board of Trustees of Northern Illinois University, 803 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2015) (prior federal litigation between Rahn and NIU/Vohra resulted in judgment adverse to Rahn)
- People ex rel. Miller v. Fullenwider, 329 Ill. 65 (Ill. 1928) (relator must have an interest distinct from the public to maintain quo warranto)