Villa DuBois, LLC v. El, 2020 IL App (1st) 190182

Villa DuBois LLC sued tenant Sabeel El in Cook County for eviction and money judgments, alleging a $750 monthly rent default and that a five‑day termination notice was served August 24, 2018. The complaint did not attach the lease or the five‑day notice.
El, proceeding pro se, timely appeared and demanded a 12‑person jury; he also filed a 2‑619(a)(9) motion to dismiss asserting plaintiff failed to attach the lease and notice and that rent was not due.
Trial was scheduled, motions were denied, and the court granted plaintiff use-and-occupancy; the matter went to jury trial on December 6, 2018 before a six‑person jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiff awarding possession and $4,161.29.
El moved for reconsideration, to vacate, for a new trial and to stay enforcement; post‑trial motions were denied and El appealed.
The appellate court found three dispositive errors: (1) no proof plaintiff complied with statutory service of the demand notice under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, (2) the trial court erred in denying El’s 2‑619(a)(9) motion because plaintiff failed to attach the lease and El produced evidence rent had been prepaid, and (3) El was improperly tried by a six‑person jury despite his proper demand for a 12‑person jury under the Illinois Constitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compliance with statutory demand notice (735 ILCS 5/9‑211)	Alleged five‑day notice was served Aug. 24, 2018 (pleading allegation).	No proof of service; five‑day notice was not attached or proved; jurisdictional defect.	Reversed: record contains no proof of compliant service; strict compliance required; proceedings violated due process.
Denial of 2‑619(a)(9) motion — failure to attach lease (735 ILCS 5/2‑606) and premature filing under 9‑209	Complaint need not contain attachments in this case as pleaded.	Lease and five‑day notice were not attached to complaint (2‑606); defendant produced rent receipt showing rent was prepaid through lease term (affirmative matter).	Reversed: defendant met burden on affirmative matters; plaintiff did not dispute; dismissal should have been granted.
Jury size — refusal to try before a 12‑person jury	No argument supporting 6‑person jury recorded.	El demanded a 12‑person jury repeatedly and did not waive that right.	Reversed: Illinois Constitution preserves 12‑person civil jury; trial by six violated El’s constitutional right; new trial required.

First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128 (appellate court may proceed where appellee fails to file a brief under certain principles)
Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (appellant must provide sufficient record; absent record presumptions favor trial court)
Figueroa v. Deacon, 404 Ill. App. 3d 48 (strict or substantial compliance with statutory demand notice required before filing eviction complaint)
Smith v. Waukegan Park District, 231 Ill. 2d 111 (definition and limits of an affirmative matter under section 2‑619)
Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (Seventh Amendment federal jurisprudence on jury size does not require 12 members)
Kakos v. Butler, 2016 IL 120377 (Illinois Constitution preserves the common‑law right to a 12‑person civil jury)
Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill. 2d 445 (denial of a fair trial may require a new trial)