Santiago v. E.W. Bliss Co.
2012 IL 111792
Ill.2012Background
- Santiago suffered severe injuries at work on May 12, 2006 and filed a product liability action in Cook County on May 9, 2008 identifying himself as Juan Ortiz.
- An amended complaint on November 12, 2008 named additional defendants and again identified Santiago as Juan Ortiz.
- During discovery, Santiago admitted his birth name was Rogasciano Santiago but acknowledged using Juan Ortiz as an employer-known name.
- Santiago sought and obtained leave to file a second amended complaint on September 18, 2009, adding Rogasciano Santiago as plaintiff; it described him as f/k/a Juan Ortiz.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing misrepresentation/ fraud on the court and that the original fictitious-name complaint was a nullity, prejudicing limitations and relation-back for the amended pleading.
- The circuit court denied dismissal; the appellate court sua sponte certified two questions under Rule 308 concerning sanctions and relation back.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal with prejudice for fictitious-name filing is authorized | Santiago used a fictitious name without leave; the court may sanction only with proper standards. | Failure to obtain leave and use of a fictitious name justifies dismissal with prejudice. | Yes, circuit court has discretion to dismiss with prejudice under clear willful conduct and inadequate lesser sanctions. |
| Whether the amended complaint relates back under 2-616(b) | Relating back should apply; the amended pleading grows from the same transaction/occurrence. | Original complaint may be a nullity; amended pleading cannot relate back if the original is void. | No, relation back can apply; the original fictitious-name complaint is not per se a nullity if not properly dismissed; remand for hearing on sanctions and relation back. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bogseth v. Emanuel, 166 Ill. 2d 507 (1995) (suits against fictitious parties are void ab initio; supports strict misnomer/pseudonym limits)
- Ohio Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Inter-Insurance Exchange of Illinois Automobile Club, 367 Ill. 44 (1937) (proceeding by or against a party by a mere fictitious name will be a nullity)
- Sander v. Dow Chemical Co., 166 Ill. 2d 48 (1995) (court may dismiss with prejudice for willful conduct; warns drastic sanction reserved for extreme abuse)
- Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir. 2006) (two-part sanction framework: clear record of willful conduct and inadequate lesser sanctions)
- Alton Evening Telegraph v. Doak, 11 Ill. App. 3d 381 (1973) (misnaming not ground for dismissal; misnomer corrected under statute)
- Goodkind v. Bartlett, 153 Ill. 419 (1884) (misnomer and need for naming the party; distinction between misnomer and fictitious party)
- Theodorakakis v. Kogut, 194 Ill. App. 3d 586 (1990) (fictitious-entity issues; distinguishes nonexistent trust accounts)