Stolfo v. Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc.
2016 IL App (1st) 142396
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Stolfo, an attorney, represented Mary Iacovetti in a defamation/false-light suit against KinderCare and employees; summary judgment for defendants was affirmed on appeal in 2011 and that appeal was deemed frivolous by this court.
- Defendants moved under Supreme Court Rule 137 for sanctions; the trial court awarded $139,992.64 in April 2011 for fees incurred after discovery showed the claims were baseless; a final judgment confirming sanctions was entered November 3, 2011.
- Stolfo filed a direct appeal from the November 2011 judgment raising, among other things, that KinderCare’s conversion to an LLC in May 2011 voided the sanctions judgment; that appeal was dismissed in June 2012 as frivolous.
- Stolfo later filed a section 2-1401 petition (Oct. 2013) seeking to vacate the November 2011 judgment, repeating many of the same arguments (LLC conversion, lack of justiciability/standing, insufficiency of Rule 137 showing, alleged denial of hearing).
- The trial court dismissed the 2-1401 petition with prejudice on res judicata grounds; Stolfo appealed and defendants moved for appellate sanctions under Supreme Court Rule 375.
- This court affirmed the dismissal, held the 2-1401 petition was barred by res judicata because Stolfo’s arguments were or could have been raised on direct appeal, and awarded Rule 375 sanctions of $22,864.49 against Stolfo; future filings by Stolfo require leave of the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stolfo’s 2-1401 petition could relitigate issues previously argued on direct appeal | Stolfo: 2-1401 may void the November 2011 judgment; raised LLC-conversion, jurisdictional and standing defects and evidentiary/procedural defects | Defendants: Petition repeats issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata bars relitigation | Court: Petition barred by res judicata because earlier appellate dismissal was a final judgment; arguments were or could have been raised on direct appeal |
| Whether a judgment alleged to be void can be collaterally attacked despite res judicata | Stolfo: A void judgment is not insulated by res judicata and can be collaterally attacked | Defendants: Preclusion applies here because the preclusive ruling is this court’s prior final dismissal of Stolfo’s direct appeal, not the underlying trial judgment he calls void | Court: Cases allowing collateral attack on void judgments do not help Stolfo; the preclusive bar is the appellate court’s June 2012 final decision |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Stolfo’s summary judgment motion before ruling on dismissal | Stolfo: The trial court should have decided his summary judgment first | Defendants: Dismissal on res judicata was proper; summary judgment decision would not affect preclusion result | Court: No error; res judicata dismissal made consideration of summary judgment unnecessary |
| Whether sanctions on appeal under Rule 375 are warranted | Stolfo: Appeal merits consideration; respondents lack standing after LLC conversion; fees are unreasonable (generally asserted) | Defendants: Stolfo has long history of frivolous filings and prior warnings; this appeal is frivolous and seeks delay | Court: Appeal is frivolous and in bad faith given repeated warnings; awards Rule 375 sanctions of $22,864.49 and requires leave before further filings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.G., 407 Ill. App. 3d 682 (Ill. App. Ct.) (res judicata bars relitigation of matters decided or that could have been raised)
- Smith v. Airoom, Inc., 114 Ill. 2d 209 (Ill. 1986) (requirements for section 2-1401 fact-based petitions: meritorious defense and due diligence)
- Hirsch v. Optima, Inc., 397 Ill. App. 3d 102 (Ill. App. Ct.) (section 2-1401 not to relitigate issues already decided)
- Twardowski v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill. App. 3d 509 (Ill. App. Ct.) (review may proceed where record and opposing brief permit ascertainment of merits despite deficient appellant brief)
- In re Estate of Jackson, 354 Ill. App. 3d 616 (Ill. App. Ct.) (court may strike noncompliant appellate briefs and disregard arguments)