The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation v. Rodriquez, 983 N.E.2d 985

Department investigated Rodriquez for use of electroconvulsive shock treatment in 2000; in 2003 Department filed a complaint under the Medical Practice Act.
Rodriquez pursued related circuit court actions; in 2004 sought deposition subpoenas, denied by circuit court and affirmed on appeal.
In 2005, the circuit court invalidated Rule 1110.220; a motion for relief from judgment vacated that ruling; appellate court later reinstated the invalidation in 2007.
On April 18, 2008, Department notified Rodriquez that the case was closed without prejudice; Rodriquez sought litigation expenses under 10-55(c) on July 16, 2008.
Circuit court granted summary judgment on res judicata; appellate court reversed and remanded for calculation of expenses; this court reverses to reinstate the circuit court’s judgment.
We hold that 10-55(c) does not create an independent action and fee petitions must be filed while the invalidating court retains jurisdiction; Rodriquez’s filing was untimely under either relevant date.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 10-55(c) create an independent cause of action for fees?	Rodriquez: 10-55(c) creates an independent fee action.	Department: no independent action; fees must be sought in the underlying case.	No; 10-55(c) does not create a separate action.
When must a fee petition be filed?	Rodriquez: petition may be filed at any time after rule invalidation.	Department: petition must be brought while the invalidating court retains jurisdiction.	Petition must be brought during the court’s jurisdiction over the underlying case.
Is Rodriquez’s fee claim timely or ripe?	Rodriquez: claim arising at rule invalidation era supports timeliness.	Department: jurisdiction ended after appellate reaffirmation; untimely.	Untimely; jurisdiction ended before filing, so barred.

Town & Country Utilities, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, 225 Ill. 2d 103 (2007) (plain-language interpretation; avoid implied exceptions; statutory context matters)
Citizens Organizing Project v. Department of Natural Resources, 189 Ill. 2d 593 (2000) (fee petition timely when filed in same case as invalidation)
Libertyville v. Bank of Waukegan, 152 Ill. App. 3d 1066 (1987) (fee petition timing after appeal; jurisdiction considerations)
Carson Pirie Scott & Co. v. State of Illinois Department of Employment Security, 131 Ill. 2d 23 (1989) (fee request in circuit court after partial denial; jurisdictional limits)
Nottage v. Jeka, 172 Ill. 2d 386 (1996) (independent fee action not created by statute; distinguishable from 10-55(c))
Ardt v. State of Illinois, 292 Ill. App. 3d 1059 (1997) (fee issues overlapping with underlying action; timeliness considerations)
Berrios v. Rybacki, 236 Ill. App. 3d 140 (1992) (fees after rule invalidation; context matters)
Pollachek v. Department of Professional Regulation, 367 Ill. App. 3d 331 (2006) (timely fee claim within related proceeding)
Hansen v. Illinois Racing Board, 179 Ill. App. 3d 353 (1989) (fee award with related proceedings)
Hernandez v. Fahner, 135 Ill. App. 3d 372 (1985) (fee request contemporaneous with underlying adjudication)
Herlehy v. Marie V. Bistersky Trust, 407 Ill. App. 3d 878 (2010) (fee petitions; jurisdictional timing considerations)