Phillips v. Bruzgul
2021 IL App (1st) 191980
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- In June 2014 Phillips filed suit alleging malpractice, breach of contract and related claims arising from the handling of his mother’s guardianship and estate (removal of prior counsel, addition of his sister as coguardian, sealed settlement, alleged threats to institutionalize the mother).
- Phillips voluntarily dismissed that 2014 complaint about a year later, then refiled in 2017 (labeled an amended complaint); the 2017 case was dismissed for want of prosecution in December 2017.
- In November 2018 Phillips filed another complaint (labeled a second/third amended complaint) against the same core defendants and some additional defendants, adding a tortious-interference count.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the 2018 filing on the ground that section 13‑217 allows only one refiling after dismissal; GAL Franciszkowicz separately moved to dismiss on immunity grounds.
- The trial court dismissed the 2018 complaint with prejudice (June 11, 2019), citing the single‑refiling rule and also discussing GAL immunity; Phillips’ motion to reconsider was denied and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2018 filing was barred by the one‑refiling rule (735 ILCS 5/13‑217) | The court applied the wrong statute; a voluntary dismissal followed by a want‑of‑prosecution dismissal should permit refiling | Section 13‑217 permits only one refiling regardless of whether earlier dismissals were voluntary or by court | Affirmed: the 2018 filing was an impermissible second refiling and was dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether GAL Franciszkowicz is immune for acts as guardian ad litem | Phillips challenged GAL immunity | GAL asserted absolute immunity for actions taken while serving as GAL | Court did not reach the immunity merits because dismissal was correct on refiling/res judicata grounds; judgment affirmed |
| Whether adding defendants/claims made the 2018 filing a different cause of action | Adding parties/claims changed the case and should allow new filing | The complaints arise from the same operative facts; identity of cause is determined by the transactional test | Held: the added claims/parties did not change the operative facts; refiling rule and res judicata bar the 2018 filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Timberlake v. Illini Hospital, 175 Ill. 2d 159 (Ill. 1997) (section 13‑217 permits only one refiling after dismissal)
- Flesner v. Youngs Development Co., 145 Ill. 2d 252 (Ill. 1991) (explaining that voluntary dismissal does not permit repeated refilings)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (Ill. 1998) (adopts the transactional test for identity of cause of action)
- People ex rel. Burris v. Progressive Land Developers, Inc., 151 Ill. 2d 285 (Ill. 1992) (res judicata bars relitigation by parties in privity)
- Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill. 2d 367 (Ill. 1997) (discusses limits on statutory amendments affecting refiling rules)