2014 IL App (4th) 130824
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- In Sept. 2010 Vollintine contracted with the Illinois Capital Development Board (CDB) to fireproof structural steel in the State Capitol.
- A Jan. 13, 2011 pipe failure caused water damage; CDB alleged Vollintine caused the leak and sought recovery from Vollintine and its insurer.
- Vollintine submitted invoices totaling $513,089 and received a certificate of substantial completion from CDB on Jan. 11, 2012; CDB retained possession and reserved contractual claims, including withholding for damages.
- The Attorney General and CDB concluded Vollintine was responsible for the water damage and sought to recoup repair costs (over $450,000); CDB withheld payment pending resolution.
- In June 2013 Vollintine filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in circuit court seeking an order compelling CDB to submit Vollintine’s approved invoices to the State Comptroller and to pay statutory interest under the State Prompt Payment Act.
- CDB moved to dismiss under sections 2-619(a)(1) and 2-615, arguing the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over contract claims against the State; the trial court granted the motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to grant mandamus compelling CDB to submit invoices and pay interest under the Prompt Payment Act, or whether the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute | The Prompt Payment Act creates a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty on CDB to submit approved invoices for payment after issuance of the certificate of substantial completion; mandamus in circuit court can compel state officials to perform statutory duties | The dispute is a contract-based monetary claim against the State; under the Claims Act §8(b) the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction. The Prompt Payment Act does not impose a separate nondiscretionary duty that bypasses the Claims Act | Court affirmed dismissal: the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction; the Prompt Payment Act does not create a standalone nondiscretionary duty to submit invoices post-substantial completion that would permit mandamus in circuit court |
Key Cases Cited
- Lake v. State, 401 Ill. App. 3d 350 (2010) (Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over monetary claims against the State under the Claims Act)
- Dye v. Pierce, 369 Ill. App. 3d 683 (2006) (requirements and limits of mandamus relief against public officials)
- Hatch v. Szymanski, 325 Ill. App. 3d 736 (2001) (mandamus will not lie to substitute court discretion for official discretion)
- Shirley v. Harmon, 405 Ill. App. 3d 86 (2010) (standard of review for section 2-619 motions and construing pleadings in plaintiff’s favor)
- In re Lawrence M., 172 Ill. 2d 523 (1996) (suit to compel public officials to perform statutory duties may not be a suit against the State in some contexts)