Williams v. Leonard
96 N.E.3d 503
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Plaintiffs originally sued Leonard (with later employer-defendants) and made no jury demand; after multiple pleadings and rulings, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed (Williams I).
- Plaintiffs promptly refiled the same cause (Williams II) adding only a jury demand; the refiled case was assigned to the same trial judge by court administration.
- Defendant filed a motion for substitution of judge as a matter of right under 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2) in Williams II; plaintiffs objected citing Bowman and the administrative assignment.
- The trial court denied defendant’s substitution motion relying on Bowman and certified the issue for interlocutory review; proceedings were stayed pending appeal.
- The core legal dispute: whether Bowman’s rule (allowing denial of an immediate substitution in a refiling when the same judge made prior substantive rulings) applies equally to defendants in refiled actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowman permits denial of a substitution of judge as of right in a refiling when the same judge made substantive rulings in the prior voluntarily dismissed case | Bowman allows the trial court discretion to deny substitution in a refiling; the refiling does not "reset the clock" for substitution rights | Bowman should not apply to defendants who did not control the voluntary dismissal/refiling; a refiling is a new action for substitution purposes | Court held Bowman applies: a refiling is not a new case for §2-1001(a)(2) purposes; either party’s motion can be denied if the judge already made substantial rulings in the cause of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowman v. Ottney, 2015 IL 119000 (Ill. 2015) (held a refiling after voluntary dismissal is not a new case for §2-1001(a)(2) when the same judge made prior substantive rulings)
- Schnepf v. Schnepf, 2013 IL App (4th) 121142 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (criticized the "test the waters" doctrine and emphasized timeliness defined as before trial/hearing and before any substantial ruling)
- Petalino v. Williams, 2016 IL App (1st) 151861 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (recognizes substitution as of right is absolute when statutory conditions are met; timeliness requirement applies)
- Colagrossi v. Royal Bank of Scotland, 2016 IL App (1st) 142216 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (applied Bowman reasoning to deny substitution where serial filings evidenced judge-shopping)
- In re Marriage of Roach, 245 Ill. App. 3d 742 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (discussed meaning of "timely" in §2-1001 and context for substitution without cause)