The Y-Not Project, Ltd v. Fox Waterway Agency, 50 N.E.3d 42

Background

In July 2012 Margaret Borcia’s 10-year-old son was killed in a boating accident on the Chain O Lakes; Borcia later formed The Y-Not Project and sued the Fox Waterway Agency (FWA) seeking mandamus relief.
Borcia alleged the FWA violated sections 7.1 and 7.7 of the Fox Waterway Act by failing to implement and enforce “necessary and reasonable” ordinances and programs (she asked the court to require the FWA to adopt rules to allow for safe recreational uses and to provide enforcement).
FWA moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) the contested duties are discretionary (not ministerial), (2) the statute does not impose safety-specific obligations or a duty to fund enforcement, and (3) mandamus is inappropriate.
The trial court limited discovery to documents from the prior three years, allowed one amended complaint (stating it was the plaintiff’s “last opportunity”), and later granted FWA summary judgment with prejudice after Borcia did not appear for final argument.
On appeal Borcia challenged the summary-judgment ruling, the discovery limit, the court’s refusal to allow further amendments, and argued the FWA’s failure to answer the amended complaint meant its factual allegations were admitted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FWA’s duties under §§7.1 & 7.7 are mandatory (subject to mandamus)	Borcia: “shall implement reasonable programs and adopt necessary and reasonable ordinances” creates a mandatory duty; failure to adopt safety rules and enforce them creates triable issues	FWA: statutory language requires exercise of judgment (what is "necessary and reasonable"), so duties are discretionary and not mandamusable	Held: Duties are discretionary; mandamus inappropriate; summary judgment for FWA affirmed
Whether limiting discovery to three years was an abuse of discretion	Borcia: needed 10 years of budgets, minutes, accident reports, emails to show what was reasonable and to rebut FWA’s compliance assertion	FWA: requests overly broad, burdensome, sought matters of discretion and past actions irrelevant to current mandamus claim	Held: Limitation to three-year window was within trial court’s broad discretion and not an abuse; additional discovery would not change legal outcome
Whether FWA’s failure to answer the amended complaint admitted all facts and precluded summary judgment	Borcia: failure to answer should result in admission of well-pleaded facts under statute	FWA: had answered original complaint and filed summary judgment; it later supplemented motion to address the amended complaint	Held: No bar to summary judgment—defendant properly moved for summary judgment and contradicted material allegations; failure to file a new answer did not preclude summary judgment
Whether the court erred by denying further amendment to the complaint	Borcia: word “safe” in prayer could be stricken or cured by another amendment; court’s “last opportunity” ruling was improper	FWA: plaintiff did not move to strike or seek leave to amend again; issue forfeited	Held: Forfeited (no motion to amend/strike below) and, in any event, result would be the same because duties are discretionary

Key Cases Cited

Tyska v. Board of Education Township High School District 214, 117 Ill. App. 3d 917 (discretion defined; distinguishes ministerial vs discretionary acts)
Howell v. Snyder, 326 Ill. App. 3d 450 (mandamus may compel exercise of discretion but not dictate how it is exercised)
Chicago Ass’n of Commerce & Industry v. Regional Transportation Authority, 86 Ill. 2d 179 (courts should not interfere with how a governmental body exercises legislatively granted discretion)
People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill. 2d 185 (mandamus unavailable when act involves discretion)
Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404 (failure to establish any element of a cause of action supports summary judgment)
Lazenby v. Mark’s Construction, Inc., 236 Ill. 2d 83 (de novo review of summary judgment)