Van Der Hooning v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 972 N.E.2d 175

Plaintiff Robert Van Der Hooning sued the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and named defendants for alleged violations of the Ethics Act.
Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3) or, in the alternative, to stay, arguing another action between the same parties on the same claim existed in the Court of Claims.
The circuit court denied both the motion to dismiss and the motion to stay.
Defendants appealed under Rule 307, challenging both the dismissal denial and the stay denial; the appeal proceeds in the appellate court.
The Court of Claims action remained stayed while plaintiff pursued remedies in the circuit court, and the General Assembly had amended the Ethics Act to authorize circuit courts to hear such claims.
The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to dismiss but did have jurisdiction to review the stay decision under Rule 307(a)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the denial of dismissal under 2-619(a)(3).	Van Der Hooning argues the appeal is improper or lacks jurisdiction.	Ghosh et al. contend Rule 307(a) permits interlocutory review of the dismissal denial.	No jurisdiction to review the denial of dismissal.
Whether the circuit court erred in denying a stay under 2-619(a)(3).	Plaintiff asserts no prejudice and that comity favors the circuit court.	Defendants argue comity and avoidance of duplicative litigation require a stay.	The circuit court did not abuse its discretion; stay denial affirmed.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 226 Ill. 2d 395 (2007) (denial of motion to dismiss is interlocutory, not final)
Stein v. Krislov, 405 Ill. App. 3d 538 (2010) (Rule 307(a) lacks jurisdiction for non-injunctive 2-619 motions)
Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 112 Ill. 2d 428 (1986) (discretion in 2-619(a)(3) balancing factors to avoid duplicative litigation)
Overnite Transp. Co. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 332 Ill. App. 3d 69 (2002) (factors in 2-619(a)(3) not all required in every case)
Hapag-Lloyd (Am.), Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 312 Ill. App. 3d 1087 (2000) (comity considerations in 2-619(a)(3) determinations)
Kapoor v. Fujisawa Pharms., Co., 298 Ill. App. 3d 780 (1998) (weighing duplicative litigation against prejudice to nonmovant)
Crain v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 317 Ill. App. 3d 486 (2000) (distinguishes Crain concerning interlocutory review jurisdiction)
Pizzato’s, Inc. v. City of Berwyn, 168 Ill. App. 3d 796 (1988) (interlocutory appeals and finality concepts)