*1 Illinois Official Reports
Appellate Court
Benton v. Little League Baseball, Inc.
,
Individually and on Behalf of His Minor Child, C.B.; DAROLD BUTLER SR. and DONITA BRUCE, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, D.B.; VENISA BEASLEY-GREEN and CHRISTOPHER GREEN, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, B.G.; CARLTON A. HONDRAS II and SHEREE HONDRAS, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, C.H.; JERRY F. HOUSTON and MYRTLE HOUSTON, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, J.H.; EDWARD HOWARD III and CALANDRA HOWARD, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, E.H.; LINDA SNEED HARRIS, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child, M.J.; NEDRA JONES and ALVIN JONES, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, P.J.; TAMMY KING and EDDIE KING SR., Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, E.K.; PRENTISS LUSTER and DARLENE LUSTER, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, P.L.; SANJA E. NOBLE, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child, L.N.; and CLAUDIA HARVEY, Individually and on Behalf of Her Minor Child, D.R., Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL, INCORPORATED; JACKIE ROBINSON WEST LITTLE LEAGUE, INC., an Illinois Not-for-Profit Corporation; BILL HALEY, Individually and as Agent and/or Employee of Jackie Robinson West Little League, Inc.; ANNIE HALEY, Individually and as Agent and/or Employee of Jackie Robinson West Little League, Inc.; EVERGREEN PARK ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an Illinois Not-for-Profit Corporation; CHRIS JANES, Individually and as Agent and/or Employee of Evergreen Park Athletic Association; ESPN, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and STEPHEN A. SMITH, Individually and as Agent of ESPN, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
District & No. First District, Second Division
No. 1-19-0549 *2 Filed June 30, 2020
Decision Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 16-L-1428; the Hon. John H. Ehrlich, Judge, presiding. Review
Judgment Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Counsel on James A. Karamanis, Kenneth A. Nazarian, and Emily A. Herbick, of Barney & Karamanis, LLP, of Chicago, for appellants. Appeal
Scott T. Schutte, Tedd M. Warden, and Tyler Zmick, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, of Chicago, for appellee Little League Baseball, Inc.
Brian A. Sher and Demetria L. Hamilton, of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, of Chicago, and Nathan E. Siegel, of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, of Washington, D.C., for appellees ESPN, Inc., and Stephen A. Smith.
Melinda S. Kollross and Paul V. Esposito, of Clausen Miller P.C., of Chicago, for appellees Jackie Robinson West Little League, Inc., Bill Haley, and Annie Haley.
No brief filed for other appellees. Panel JUSTICE LAVIN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Pucinski and Coghlan concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION In August 2014, Jackie Robinson West, an all African-American baseball team from the
south sidе of Chicago, won the United States Little League World Series (World Series) title. This event aired nationally on ESPN to much acclaim, causing these 10-, 11-, and 12-year-old “South Siders” to become national media darlings before a tragic confluence of events led to the players being stripped of their title some six months later in February 2015, amid allegations of residency rule violations.
¶ 2 This appeal arises out of a lawsuit filed by the Jackie Robinson West parents/guardians,
individually and on behalf of their 13 minor children, against Little League Baseball, Inc. (Little League), the team’s corporate entity Jackie Robinson West Little League, Inc. (Jackie Robinson West, Inc. [1] ), team president Annie Haley and team treasurer Bill Haley (collectively, the Haleys), as well as ESPN, Inc., and its employee Stephen A. Smith (ESPN/Smith), among others. Several counts were also individually filed by team manager and head coach Darold Butler (Coach Butler), who is also a parent. The suit included claims for breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light, and civil conspiracy. The Jackie Robinson West players also sought to be reinstated as champions. As to the second-amended complaint, the trial court dismissed with prejudice all counts filed by the parents on their own behalf and several counts filed on the children’s behalf. The court, however, denied motions to dismiss claims for breach of implied contract (count I) and promissory estoppel (count II), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (counts VI and VIII), which were filed on behalf the children.
¶ 3 This interlocutory appeal followed with Little League, Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the
Haleys, аnd ESPN/Smith filing briefs in response. For the reasons delineated below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the various counts but hold that reinstatement of the championship title remains a viable remedy as to counts I and II. I. BACKGROUND The following facts are gleaned from the pleadings, motions, exhibits, and orders that
precede this appeal. Little League is a not-for-profit corporation providing international youth baseball and softball programs for players ages 4 to 18. To participate, players of the correct age must live within or attend school within certain geographical boundaries designated annually by each local league. Jackie Robinson West, Inc., with players emanating from the south side of Chicago, was just one of these locally chartered teams and had gained approval from Little League in late April 2014. Although such teams form annually, the Jackie Robinson West team is a storied South Side league, dating as far back as the 1980s. In support of the 2014 charter, Jackie Robinson West, Inc., submitted the requisite boundary map to Illinois Little League District 4 (District 4), since each local league was to determine its own boundaries. Plaintiffs alleged in their second-amended complaint that District 4 then emailed the map to the next organizational tier, Little League’s central regional office in Indianapolis, Indiana. In addition to the Jackie Robinson West team, District 4 supervised three other Chicago-area little league teams. The Jackie Robinson West team began its regular baseball season in May 2014 and
concluded a month later. Only certain players then participated in the post-season tournaments. With help from Coach Butler, Jackie Robinson West created a formidablе team of 13 all-star players. Subject to great fanfare and media coverage, this team won regional and state championships, and in August 2014, the World Series. The team then competed internationally but ultimately lost to a South Korean team. ESPN televised certain tournaments, including the World Series. This was reportedly the most watched little league series ever on that network. Up to this point, there was no question that Jackie Robinson West was a legitimate team
under Little League’s guidelines, having advanced and won the World Series fair and square. That view, however, would soon become cloudy. In September 2014, Chris Janes, the vice president of a rival suburban league, approached Little League and protested the Jackie Robinson West players’ eligibility based on their residency. [2] To understand this protest, and by way of background, it is worth noting that before
participating in regional tournaments in July, Coach Butler created a binder containing the Jackie Robinson West children’s birth certificates, residency documents, and a boundary map dated May 1, 2014. [3] This binder served as supporting documentation for the requisite “Tournament Team Eligibility Affidavit,” meant to ensure that the 13 players were qualified under Little League rules to play for Jackie Robinson West. The affidavit lists the players by name, identifies their residences/schools, and states that the residences/schools listed for each player had to be inside the boundaries defined by the submitted map. Significantly, this photocopied tournament map was the same as that attached to the team’s original charter and signed by team president Haley and Little League district administrator Michael Kelley. This simple boundary map provided a black-line graphic of thе north, south, east, and west borders and appeared to plot the players’ corresponding residences/schools within the boundaries. The parties do not dispute that the addresses listed in the affidavit under each of the players’ names were correct. Little League, however, maintains “the actual addresses were outside the eligible borders for players.” In other words, not all of the 13 players resided within the team’s identified boundaries. It is this detail that allegedly fell through the cracks and rendered the Jackie Robinson West team reportedly ineligible to compete. In spite of this discrepancy, the affidavit contains various signatures by officials from
Jackie Robinson West, Inc., and Little League, guaranteeing the accuracy of the information contained therein. For example, Coach Butler, president Haley, and district administrator Kelley signed the affidavit in July 2014. Little League regional tournament director Nina Johnson also certified the affidavit as being accurate in July 2014. Plaintiffs presented this eligibility affidavit for review to the “Tournament Director” at
each of their post-season tournaments, including at the World Series. [4] Additionally, the affidavit stated that if the tournament committee, which league guidelines vested with sole authority over tournaments, deemed any player ineligible due to residency problems, the team could forfeit the tournament game and be removed from play. [5] It could also result in removal
of personnel from league activities. It apparently was this residency rule that Janes focused on in his protest. In response, Little
League “conducted an investigation and determined the Tournament Affidavit addresses were correct.” Plaintiffs, however, maintain that as of September and October, other Little League officials and the team’s corporate personnel knew something was up. Plaintiffs maintain that regional tournament director Johnson and another Little League official had notified team treasurer Haley by e-mail that several players were ineligible because they lived outside the identified boundaries. Plaintiffs allege that, despite this knowledge, none of the defendants took any steps to inform Jackie Robinson West parents and players of the team’s eligibility problems. Rather, defendants allegedly chose to conceal or ignore these problems during and/or after tournament play. Alternatively, plaintiffs maintain that Little League found the team had no residency problems during the tournament. Little League countered that the review process for tournaments did not include verifying the accuracy of boundaries or ensuring the addresses fell within the boundaries. Yet, Little League also stated that district administrator Kelley was responsible for verifying the boundaries and the plotting of players’ addresses within those boundaries. Even in the face of the eligibility doubts, the players, not knowing any better, accepted an
invitation to the White House, where they met former President Barack Obama. That fall, the players attended a Major League Baseball World Series game. The international president and CEO of Little League was present at both of these events. While plaintiffs claim they “believe” the players were all eligible and within the acceptable
boundaries, plaintiffs likewise acknowledge that in December 2014, team treasurer Haley tried to correct any eligibility problems by “expanding” the boundary map. In other words, he attempted to retroactively absorb territory from the other little leagues (presumably within District 4), so that the ineligible children now lived within the map’s newly drawn boundaries. On the heels of these actions, a second investigation conducted by Little League in response to increased media pressure revealed the above-stated eligibility problems with the team’s map. According to Little League, Jackie Robinson West officials and district administrator Kelley submitted a backdated map that attempted to retroactively change the team’s boundaries and correct the residential eligibility issue. Thus, it was in December 2014 that Little League higher-ups apparently became aware of any alleged fraud involving the maps. Consequently, on February 11, 2015, Little League issued a news release that it was
vacating and revoking the Jackie Robinson West team’s regional and national championship titles. [6] The release stated that both Jackie Robinson West, Inc., and district administrator Kelley had “knowingly violated Little League International Rules and Regulations by placing players on [the Jackie Robinson West team] who did not qualify to play because they lived outside the team’s boundaries.” They were specifically accused of using a falsified boundary map for their 2014 tournament. According to the release, Stephen D. Keener, Little League international president and CEO, stated that, upon review, “it became clear that” team officials and district administrator Kelley “signed documents to make players eligible who should not have been.” According to the release, these matters only came to the attention of the tournament officials in January 2015, “when local league officials confirmed that they had direct knowledge of this rule violation, but never reported it to Little League International, as
is common with local league operations.” The release announced that as a result of these deceptions, Coach Butler had been suspended from Little League activity, district administrator Kelley had been removed from his position, and the team had been placed on probation. Notably, the release did not specifically direct any comments at the Jackie Robinson West parents.
¶ 16 The first TV news programs to report on the stripping of the team’s title was ESPN’s First
Take , a segment wherein commentators Smith and his co-anchor Skip Bayless debate the sports news of the day. [7] Just hours after Little League issued its news release on February 11, First Take began its segment with that breaking news story. First Take host Cari Champion summarized the Little League news release set forth above and then showed a clip from an interview with Keener, who commented that the decision was necessary to maintain Little League’s integrity. Keener, however, added that no one should blame the players, who appeared not to know of the rule violations. Champion then turned to Smith for his reaction, and Smith opined:
“I’m in pain over this one, to be quite honest with you, because of those kids. They’re innocent in all of this by all accounts. They were of age, they came together as a team, they just went out there and they compete and *** you see these stories and they just resonates [ sic ] with you in such a profoundly positive way and the adults screw it up because of, you know, starving for notoriety, starving for recognition, starving to win and willing to sell kids dreams out in order to pull it off.” Smith added that this was only the third time something like this had happened in Little League. Smith then addressed Bayless:
“[L]et’s put their names out here. You [got a] team manager by the name of Darold Butler suspended from any little league activity. Good. We’ve got Michael Kell[e]y, Illinois District 4 administrator removed from his position. Good. Hopefully it will be permanently because this is completely and utterly unnecessary.” Smith continued his commentary, stating: “[A]nd let me also add what really resonates to me and what makes this hurt even more *** This is called the Jackie Robinson West Team. Jackie Robinson, as renowned a figure in sports annuls as ever there was, responsible for integrating major league baseball in 1947, an iconic and revered, [deified] figure in our community and in American history. You have his name attached to this because it’s Jackie Robinson West, ok? First all African American team to win the championship and this is how you did it. Just disgraceful.”
Smith stated, “thank God the kids really had nothing to do with this,” as they were just victims. He concluded, however, that “[a] bunch of adults and parents who knew better *** decided to do this. Pox on all of their houses. They should all be ashamed of themselves.” In response, Bayless noted that he had repeatedly seen Coach Butler’s face during the World Series. Smith then stated:
“I’d like to see it again *** Let’s get a picture of Darold Butler. Since you want to sit there and throw kids in to the wind like this this. If this was somebody else—if it was a professional athlete, if one of these kids had gotten in trouble or something like
that, we’d put their face up. Let’s put Darold Butler and Michael Kell[e]y’s face up on national television. Treat it like the mug shot it deserves to be treated like. How about that?”
¶ 21 Bayless then asked Smith whether any kids on the team knew “they were crossing
boundaries that they weren’t supposed to cross?” Bayless said:
“Again, the parents were saying ‘do it,’ the manager’s saying ‘do it’ but you[’re] sending such a bad message to kids, surely some of the kids—they know the rules, thеy knew they weren’t in this district.”
In reply, Smith stated:
“Usually in the case of kids, you don’t necessarily know ***, but the adults knew, the parents knew, the coach, the administrator—they knew, and they did it anyway hoping that folks would never find out while they got their 15 minutes of fame. They didn’t think about the kids. They thought about themselves. The parents *** have to prove where they live. So what I’m saying to you is that there’s been some falsified documentation—or something going on here because you knowingly engaged in deceit—So you can have your kid play ineligibly. Inexcusable.” The segment concluded with Champion stating it is “unfortunate that the children have to pay for these adult mistakes.” She then proceeded into the next segment about the Dallas Cowboys. Notably, Smith never identified Coach Butler as a parent during this news program. Likewise, he never singled out any other parents by name. Exactly a year later, plaintiffs filed suit on February 11, 2016. At issue is their 22-count
second-amended complaint, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false light, and civil conspiracy. Plaintiffs alleged, in the main, that Little League and Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys knew of the potential eligibility problems in the fall of 2014 or before, but covered up these facts to gain profit and notoriety on the backs of the parents and their children, to their emotional and economic detriment. In addition, plaintiffs alleged that those defendants knew or should have known that the players were not qualified under the rules and regulations, and yet, up the entire chain of command, they failed to enforce the Little League rules and regulations to the detriment of both the parents and players. Plaintiffs also allegеd that ESPN/Smith, in reporting on the matter, falsely accused the parents of participating in the cheating scandal or cover-up, thereby defaming them. Coach Butler added that ESPN/Smith went so far as to suggest he had committed a crime, which was also defamatory. In response, Little League and ESPN/Smith filed separate motions to dismiss under section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (see 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2016)). Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys filed a motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code (see 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2016)). At a hearing, the trial court carefully considered the counts in the complaint and entered detailed oral findings, which comprised its order. The court dismissed with prejudice counts III-V, alleging defamation; counts VII and IX-XI, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress as to the parents; counts XII-XVIII, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress; counts XIX-XXI, alleging false light; and count XXII, alleging civil conspiracy. The court denied dismissal of counts VI and VIII, alleging intentional infliction of
emotional distress as to the children, as well as count I, alleging breach of implied contract, *8 and count II, alleging promissory estoppel, which were also filed on behalf of the children. Notwithstanding the ruling on counts I and II, the court held that reinstatement of the championship title was not an available remedy under the facts alleged.
¶ 26 Accordingly, the court dismissed with prejudice all counts relating to the parents and
ESPN/Smith and only some relating to the children. The present case was then severed from that of the children, which remained pending in the trial court under a different and consolidated trial court number, No. 18 L 00178. The court then entered an order finding there was no just reason to delay appealing the dismissed counts, and plaintiffs appealed pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016).
¶ 27 II. ANALYSIS In reviewing the merits of the instant appeal, we note that motions to dismiss pursuant to
sections 2-615 and 2-619 admit all well-pleaded facts together with all reasonable inferences
that can be gleaned from those facts.
Spillyards v. Abboud
,
deference to the trial court’s reasoning.
Spillyards
,
reinstating the 2014 championship title under counts I and II of the second-amended complaint. *9 They argue specific performance in the form of reinstatement is the only remedy that would make them whole again, and as such, there is no adequate legal remedy. Defendant Little League does not dispute that reinstatement of the championship title is a
possible remedy but argues that plaintiffs lack standing to pursue such relief. Little League
raised this argument in its motion to dismiss filed under section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code. See
In re Estate of Schlenker
,
and capable of resolution by judicial decision.
Greer v. Illinois Housing Development
Authority
,
recognized interest at stake, we find the allegations in the complaint contradict that contention.
See
id.
(noting that we look to the allegations in the complaint to determine whether the
plaintiff has standing to sue). In count I, plaintiffs, the Jackie Robinson West players, by and
through their parents, sued Little League for breach of an implied contract in fact, which is a
cause of action where an agreement is arrived at by consideration of the parties’ acts and
conduct.
Cable America, Inc. v. Pace Electronics, Inc.
,
legally recognized interest against foul play by Little League with regard to its own rules and regulations, given the parents and players’ investment of time and money in the organization. The breach was distinct, palpable, and fairly traceable to Little League’s alleged failure to *10 follow its own rules regarding verifying eligibility and/or reporting problems. The players suffered a distinct injury in fact by the stripping of their hard-won championship title, which would be redressed by reinstating the championship title. The allegations thus were sufficient to establish appropriate standing for plaintiffs to raise the claim. We reach the same conclusion as to count II, where the Jackie Robinson West players, by
and through their parents, alleged promissory estoppel. This requires that they prove (1) the
defendant made an unambiguous promise to the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff relied on such
promise, (3) the plaintiff’s reliance was expected and foreseeable by the defendants, and (4) the
plaintiff relied on the promise to its detriment.
Newton Tractor Sales, Inc. v. Kubota Tractor
Corp.
,
“legally rеcognized interest” in the championship title resides only in the corporate entity of Jackie Robinson West, Inc. Little League argues rather confusingly that plaintiffs have no legally recognized interest and, thus, lack standing because they have no ownership interests in the team or the championship title (since Little League claims Jackie Robinson West, Inc., was the corporate entity that won the title). At the same time, Little League acknowledges that standing may exist regardless of “ownership,” so long as the complainant has a legally recognized interest. With that concession, Little League defeats its own argument, which appears completely out of left field and offers this court little clarity. Moreover, Little League’s argument that only Jackie Robinson West, Inc., as a not-for-
profit corporate entity, could file the claims on behalf of the parents/players must be rejected for several additional reasons. First, Little League has neglected to address the doctrine of associational standing, through which a not-for-profit organization may assert the legal rights of its members in certain circumstances. See Winnebago County Citizens for Controlled Growth v. County of Winnebago , 383 Ill. App. 3d 735, 740 (2008). There are three requirements for associational standing, including (1) where the organization’s members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, (2) where the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose, and (3) where neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Id. Yet, contrary to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), (i) (eff. May 25, 2018), Little League has failed to cite any legal authority for its propositions and has failed to develop its argument as to why that not-for-profit corporation is better suited to file the complaint than the players/parents that comprise the team, without which the corporate entity of Jackie Robinson West, Inc., would be but an empty shell, and there would be no championship title. See id. (requiring the argument to contain the contentions of the appellee with citation to the authorities and the record relied on, and points not argued are forfeited). A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined and supported by pertinent authority and cohesive arguments; it is not merely a repository into which parties may dump the burden of argument and research, nor is it the obligation of this court to act as an advocate. See Atlas v. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. , 2019 IL App (1st) 180939, ¶ 33. Given that it is Little League’s burden to establish a lack of standing, it has demonstrably failed. *11 We conclude that plaintiffs alleged an injury in fact to a legally recognized interest. Based
on this determination, we hold that specific performance in the form of reinstatement of the
championship title is a possible equitable remedy, at least at this stage in the proceedings,
where we take the allegations in the complaint as true. See
Continental Casualty Co. v.
Commonwealth Edison Co.
, 286 Ill. App. 3d 572, 578-79 (1997) (the relief available to a
plaintiff is derived from the substance of the claim before it);
Koehler v. The Packer Group,
Inc.
,
defamation against ESPN and its reporter, Smith. Plaintiffs argue that during the February 11,
2015, sports news broadcast, Smith made false statements of fact about the Jackie Robinson
West parents and Coach Butler regarding the team’s alleged eligibility problems. To state a
cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must present facts showing that the defendant made
a false statement about the plaintiff, the defendant made an unprivileged publication of that
statement to a third party, and the publication caused damages.
Hadley v. Doe
,
are
per quod
. A statement is defamatory
per se
if its harm is obvious and apparent on its face.
Hadley
, 2015 IL 118000, ¶ 30;
Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp.
, 154 Ill. 2d 1, 10-11
(1992). There are five categories of such statements, only one of which is relevant to this
appeal, and that includes words that impute the commission of a criminal offense.
Id.
Under
that category, generally the crime must be an indictable one involving moral turpitude, with
death or imprisonment as punishment.
Dobias v. Oak Park & River Forest High School District
200
, 2016 IL App (1st) 152205, ¶ 87. If a defamatory statement is actionable
per se
, the
plaintiff need not plead or prove actual damage to his reputation to recover.
Bryson v. News
America Publications, Inc.
,
particular, in count III, the Jackie Robinson West parents asserted that during the broadcast, ESPN/Smith committed defamation per quod when Smith erroneously charged them with submitting “falsified documentation” to Little League and knowingly engaging in deceit so their kids could “play ineligibly.” The parents specifically pointed to Smith’s comment, “A bunch of adults and parents who knew better—parents who knew better decided to do this. Pox on all their houses. They should all be ashamed of themselves.” According to the parents, this also suggested they were responsible for the lost title. In count IV, Coach Butler asserted that ESPN/Smith committed defamation per se when Smith stated that Coach Butler’s image should be treated like a mug shot, and in doing so, Smith falsely suggested that he had committed the crime of fraud (which is the first category in a defamation per se action). As to count V, which Coach Butler brought against ESPN/Smith, Coach Butler set forth essentially the same allegations, only under defamation per quod . In dismissing these counts, the trial court found first and foremost that Smith’s statements
were nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole protected by the first amendment. ESPN/Smith now focus on this point in response to plaintiffs’ arguments on appeal. The first amendment may protect a statement of opinion in limited circumstances,
including, as in this case, where the cause of action is brought by private individuals against a
media defendant.
Imperial Apparel, Ltd. v. Cosmo’s Designer Direct, Inc.
,
differentiate the defamation
per quod
counts (III and V) from the defamation
per se
count (V).
Rather, they seem to lump all the defamatory counts into one on appeal even though they are
very distinct. They also do not specify how count III, brought by the parents, qualifies as
defamation
per quod
. From the reply brief, plaintiffs appear to clarify that Smith charged the
*13
parents as criminals (a
per se
category), but extrinsic evidence would be needed to prove their
identities, since Smith never specifically named them. See
Bryson
,
precise, readily understandable, and verifiable. However, wе first examine the social context in which the statements arose and whether that signaled factual content. As ESPN notes, the broadcast at issue was indeed a point-counterpoint commentary on the sports news of the day; as such, it was inherently meant to offer opinion and analysis. This much is clear from the opening, where the broadcaster Champion announced the “breaking news” that Little League stripped the team of its championship and suspended Coach Butler because Jackie Robinson West, Inc., “knowingly violated rules and regulations by placing players on their team who did not qualify to play because they lived outside the team’s boundaries.” Following comments by Little League’s president, wherein he noted the children’s innocence, Champion turned to Smith for his reaction. Smith then offered various strongly stated, emphatic, and sometimes bombastic personal
views, including “I’m in pain over this one *** because of those kids.” He stated that the Jackie
Robinson West children’s story “just resonates with you in such a profoundly positive way,”
but “the adults screw it up because of, you know, starving for notoriety, starving for
recognition, starving to win and willing to sell kids dreams out in order to pull it off.” Smith
thereby vilified the adults involved in the matter—opining emphatically that it is “good” that
Coach Butler and district administrator Kelley were suspended—and exonerated the children,
while also noting that the identity of the team’s namesake, the renowned African American
baseball player, Jackie Robinson, “makes this hurt even more.” Smith’s cohost, Bayless, also
makes a few comments throughout. Thus, the exchange here is typical of most sports
commentary, in that it is “marked not only by spontaneity, but by the often exaggerated and
uncareful exchange of vehemently held opinions.”
Hunter v. Hartman
,
Smith noted, for example, that Little League had existed for 75 years, and a scenario like “this” had only happened three times, with other problems being “over-aged players participating,” *14 from the Philippines and the Bronx. Smith also noted that Jackie Robinson was a renowned sports figure who was responsible for integrating major league baseball. A reasonable viewer could hardly consider these statements mere opinion or hyperbole. Rather, they are statements of verifiable fact. It is against this backdrop that Smith again asserted the innocence of the children but then
assigned guilt to “[a] bunch of adults and parents who knew better—parents who knew better decided to do this. Pox on all their houses. They should be ashamed of themselves.” After noting the children earned their White House meeting, Bayless observed that he saw Coach Butler many times on national television during the tournaments and that he “knows his face.” In an exaggerated manner, Smith then stated, “I’d like to see it again,” and “Let’s get a picture of Darold Butler *** Since you want to sit there and throw kids in to the wind like this.” Smith ultimately suggested placing Butler and Kelley’s “face up on national television,” and asserted, “Treat it like the mug shot it deserves to be treated like.” Bayless then queried whether the kids knew they were “crossing boundaries they weren’t supposed to cross,” to which Smith responded “the adults knew, the parents knew, the coach, the administrator—they knew, and they did it anyway hoping that folks would never find out while they got their 15 minutes of fame. They didn’t think about the kids.” Smith ends the program noting, “The parents *** have to prove where they live. So what I’m saying to you is that there’s been some falsified documentation— or something going on here because you knowingly engaged in deceit—So you can have your kid play ineligibly. Inexcusable.” (Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs now argue that, according to the commentary cited immediately above, Smith stated in a precise, readily understood, and verifiable manner that both the team’s parents and Coach Butler were “criminals” and that it can be implied they committed “criminal forgery and fraud.” Plaintiffs therefore argue that Smith’s commentary cannot be considered mere protectable opinion. We cannot agree. From this, no ordinary viewer would believe Smith had charged the
parents and Coach Butler with the commission of a criminal offense. See
Dobias
, 2016 IL App
(1st) 152205, ¶ 93 (the relevant inquiry is whether an alleged defamatory statement “ ‘fairly
impute[s] the commission of a crime’ in the eyes of the reasonable reader” (quoting
Kirchner
v. Green
,
factual statements, or supportable interpretations of the news at hand. For example, no reasonable viewer would conclude Smith really wished a “pox” on the parents’ houses. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pox (last visited June 23, 2020) [https://perma.cc/6T8F-CEU5] (defining “pox” as a “disastrous evil,” such as a plague or curse). Nor would a reasonable viewer conclude Smith wished to emblazon Coach Butler’s face on television as in a mug shot, especially since Smith and ESPN could have easily done that. His comment was the equivalent of saying “it’s just criminal what coach Butler did,” but no reasonable viewer would understand that to mean Coach Butler actually committed a crime. The mug shot comment was another way of expressing pointed exasperation and was clearly made for dramatic effect to contrast the adults with the innocent children. Likewise, immediately after the comment charging the parents with falsifying
documentation, Smith acknowledged that “something” was “going on here,” implying that he
did not know exactly what and that he was speculating. See
Wynne v. Loyola University of
Chicago
,
masses” and, thus, impeached their integrity and reputation. Notably, the Little League press releаse does not ascribe any fault to the team’s parents individually or as a group (a matter we discuss in more depth later). While it makes mention of Coach Butler, the release does not identify him as a parent.
*16 One can only imagine the shame these accusations on national television would inspire in
the parents and children, especially if false. To that extent, Smith’s commentary and interpretation of the breaking news of the day, at least given the information presented in this appeal, seems loose and careless. Nonetheless, plaintiffs still have not made clear from their complaint or on appeal how accusations of cheating at a children’s sport amount to actionable defamation, especially when none of the parents were singled out by name and Coach Butler was never identified as a parent . Finally, even if Smith’s statements that the parents knew of eligibility problems and also
falsified documents were objectively verifiable facts constituting defamation
per quod
, as
plaintiffs allege in count III, we agree with the trial court that plaintiffs still have not adequately
identified damages. As stated, a
per quod
action requires allegations of specific facts
establishing the plaintiffs’ special damages.
Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel
,
fate. There, Coach Butler asserted that Smith’s statements irreparably “tarnished” his
reputation and caused emotional and economic damage, “specifically by his lost job, lost
opportunities for book and movie contracts, and lost reputation.” Plaintiffs did not identify
what job Coach Butler had. If it was his volunteer job as a little league coach, he had already
been suspended from that prior to Smith’s comments. Additionally, plaintiffs did not specify
what particular book or movie contracts were available to Coach Butler prior to the broadcast.
The allegations аlso fail to support the conclusion that Smith’s comments, rather than the press
release by Little League and other media attention, caused the losses that Coach Butler claims.
See
Hardiman
,
damages. However, the action fails for the reasons stated above, insofar as Smith’s mug shot *17 comment was protected by the first amendment as opinion and rhetorical hyperbole. No other complained-of comment could be construed as defamatory per se . For all the reasons stated, plaintiffs’ contentions as to counts III, IV, and V must fail. C. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress We turn next to plaintiffs’ contentions involving intentional infliction of emotional distress,
a tort first recognized in
Knierim v. Izzo
,
truly extreme and outrageous.
Schweihs v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
,
judged by an objective standard, based on all the facts and circumstances of an individual case.
Doe
, 161 Ill. 2d at 392;
Graham v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
, 318 Ill. App. 3d 736, 745
(2000). Relevant factors include (1) whether the defendant holds a position of authority over
the plaintiff, abuses that authority, or maintains power to affect the plaintiff’s interests;
(2) whether the defendant reasonably believed his objective was legitimate; and (3) whether
the defendant was aware the plaintiff could be particularly susceptible to emotional distress.
Kolegas
,
West, Inc./the Haleys actively concealed the purported eligibility problems, which enabled the team to advance and win the championship title so the defendants could gain media notoriety and financial gain. The parents added that Little League failed to comply with its own rules and then unceremoniously stripped the children of their championship without giving the parents the opportunity to challenge the matter. They maintain all of this constituted extreme and outrageous behavior on the part of Little League and Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys, given the power those entities and individuals held over the parents. We cannot agree. We first question the level of authority or power that Little League and
Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys could wield over the parents. Typical examples of
individuals who exercise power or authority over a plaintiff include police officers, school
authorities, landlords, and creditors.
Id.
at 87; see,
e.g.
,
Doe
, 161 Ill. 2d at 393-95 (finding
extreme and outrageous conduct where a police officer was rude and demeaning to a sexual
assault victim outside her home and refused to break down her door, while an intruder raped
her daughter, due to the officer’s fear of liability for property damage). Little League and Jackie
Robinson West, Inc., however, are not-for-profit corporations in which the parents voluntarily
submitted their children to participate via paid dues and their children’s time. For their kids to
play, the parents had to submit their children’s birth certificates and residency documents to—
none other than one of the other parents—Coach Butler. Additionally, there is no allegation
that the parents did not have access to the Little League rule book, notwithstanding that Little
League ultimately cоntrolled any disputes. Thus, the parents were not parties lacking agency
or entirely dependent on Little League or the Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys. Rather,
the allegations show that the parents were autonomous adults with equal capacity to evaluate
eligibility matters under the rule book, with one of their own spearheading the team. Plus, there
is no indication that Little League or Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys coerced,
threatened, or subjected the parents to a recurring pattern of abusive contact. See
Rudis v.
National College of Education
,
Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys were extreme and outrageous. According to the complaint,
Little League was not presented with eligibility complaints until after the tournament titles
were already won, a fact that plaintiffs conceded. This contradicts plaintiffs’ sweeping theory
that Little League actively concealed any eligibility problems to profit from the team’s
championship win (a basis for their allegation of extreme and outrageous conduct). Although
the players attended the White House and a Major League Baseball World Series game after
their win, plaintiffs have not delineated how this would enable Little League or Jackie
*19
Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys to profit financially. See
Anderson
,
eligibility problems, declined to follow the rules, and wielded some authority over the parents,
the conduct alleged was not so extreme and outrageous that it surpassed all bounds of decency
as to the parents. See
Chang Hyun Moon
,
emotional distress against ESPN/Smith. As in their defamation claim, the parents alleged in count X that Smith falsely accused them of falsifying documents and knowingly engaging in deceit and fraud, a matter which Smith then broadcast on national television. The parents alleged that, as a result of this extreme and outrageous conduct, they suffered severe emotional distress. In count XI, Coach Butler also maintained that he suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the mug shot comment. Plaintiffs now rely on Kolegas , cited above, in arguing against the dismissal of those counts. In Kolegas , a radio station aired an advertisement paid for by the plaintiff Kolegas for his
festival benefiting a foundation for neurofibromatosis, or Elephant Man’s disease. Following
this, Kolegas appeared in an on-air interview with the two disc jockeys to promote the festival,
identifying the cause it benefited. In response to their query, Kolegas stated that his wife and
5-year-old son, also plaintiffs, had the disease. At that point, the radio hosts hung up on
Kolegas, then disparaged the festival, and implied that Kolegas’ wife was so hideous that no
one would marry her except under duress. The hosts also broadcast statements implying that
*20
Kolegas’ wife and young child had deformed heads. The supreme court reversed the trial
court’s dismissal of the emotional distress claim, concluding that the conduct was extreme and
outrageous. The court first noted “the power of the media cannot be denied” and reasoned that
the radio hosts spouted their falsehoods over the media channels, even as the plaintiff lacked
access to rebut the claims.
Kolegas
,
abused their authority to the plaintiffs’ emotional detriment. We cannot agree. We find Kolegas distinguishable in several important respects. First, while ESPN/Smith undeniably wield the power of the media, the plaintiffs, as parents, were not simply bystanders lacking access to rebut the claims. As stated in their own complaint, the Jackie Robinson West team’s story had been widely publicized through various media channels leading up to the complained-of commentary. One of those articles is attached to plaintiffs’ complaint. In December 2014, the Chicago Tribune reported on the alleged eligibility scandal and noted that several Jackie Robinson West parents absolutely denied any wrongdoing. For example, one player’s father said he and the other parents had “nothing to hide” and that he had acted in the best interests of his son and family. The father stated he would never do anything to embarrass his family or the team. Thus, although ESPN/Smith clearly maintained greater power as a media channel, we cannot say the plaintiffs lacked access to rebut the claims, as was the case in Kolegas . More importantly, ESPN/Smith never named the parents individually on air or identified and then disparaged any particular physical impairment (like the Elephant Man’s disease) that would reasonably cause extreme emotional distress. The plaintiffs thus have not identified that they were particularly susceptible to severe emotional distress, unlike in Kolegas . Additionally, in Kolegas , the supreme court upheld the plaintiffs’ actions for defamation per se and false light. Here, even assuming Smith stated falsehoods about the parents, implying they cheated, still we cannot say this would cause extreme emotional distress for the same reasons discussed immediately above. We return to the fact that this was a voluntary little league team, and it is certainly a reasonable expectation in the public sports world that cheating accusations will arise and be publicly aired. Even assuming the accusations are false, they cannot lead to an emotional distress claim under the present circumstances involving adult parents who had previously been the subject of publicity and had no identifiable susceptibility to emotional distress. For the reasons stated, we conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing counts VII,
IX, X, and XI, relating to the parents’ intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of
action. No reasonable fact finder would find the complained-of conduct was extreme or
outrageous.
Cf. McGrath
,
negligent infliction of emotional distress.
[9]
Generally, to state a claim for negligent infliction
of emotional distress, a plaintiff must allege the traditional elements of negligence, which are
duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Schweihs
, 2016 IL 120041, ¶ 31; see also
Lewis v.
CITGO Petroleum Corp.
,
distress and a contemporaneous physical injury or impact, requiring actual physical contact of
some sort.
Schweihs
, 2016 IL 120041, ¶¶ 31, 38. Our supreme court in
Schweihs
, 2016 IL
120041, ¶¶ 33-43, has reaffirmed that where, as here, plaintiffs allege that they were the direct
victims of the defendants’ negligent infliction of emotional distress, they must satisfy the
“impact rule.” See also
Cochran
, 2017 IL 121200, ¶ 15;
Lewis
, 561 F.3d at 703. A direct
victim, moreover, need not allege that he suffered physical manifestations from the emotional
distress (like those noted immediately below in
Rickey
, for example) as a prerequisite to
recovery; emotional injuries stemming from the physical impact or injury alone will suffice.
Schweihs
,
*22 In contrast, bystanders may recover if they are in the zone of physical danger and, because
of the defendant’s negligence, have reasonable fear for their own safety.
Schweihs
, 2016 IL
120041, ¶ 32. The bystandеr need not have a physical impact or injury at the time of the
negligent act, but must have been in “ ‘such proximity to the accident in which the direct victim
was physically injured that there was a high risk to him of physical impact.’ ”
Id.
(quoting
Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority
,
parents—alleged direct victim negligent infliction of emotional distress against Little League, Jackie Robinson West, Inc./Haleys, and also ESPN/Smith in counts XII-XVII; in count XVIII, Coach Butler alleged the same cause of action against ESPN/Smith. In the various iterations, plaintiffs alleged that due to the defendants’ negligent conduct in handling and revoking the little league championship title, plaintiffs suffered from emotional distress and physical manifestations requiring psychological treatment. The emotional distress included depression, anxiety, fear of being in public, feelings of extreme degradation and hopelessness, loss of concentration, and suicidal ideation. Physical manifestations included headaches, nausea, hypertension, muscle spasms, and stomach pain, chest pain, insomnia, and fatigue. The trial court dismissed all counts relating to negligent infliction of emotional distress, finding that “a physical injury to someone ” (emphasis added) at the very least was required but entirely lacking in the present case and that plaintiffs could not rest their claim on “emotional injuries” alone. Plaintiffs now challenge that determination. On appeal, plaintiffs essentially concede they did not suffer a physical impact or injury,
but they maintain that their physical manifestations of emotional distress are sufficient to
support a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim for direct victim liability under the
present state of Illinois law. Plaintiffs are confused. Plaintiffs need not, but nonetheless do
allege that they suffered from physical symptoms or, in other words, manifestations of
emotional distress like “depression, anxiety, weight gain, insomnia, headaches, stomach pains,
chest pain, fatigue, muscle spasms,” etc. See
Schweihs
, 2016 IL 120041, ¶ 42. Meanwhile,
plaintiffs as direct victims are
required
to but do not allege any physical injury or impact that
was contemporaneous with (and thus necessarily distinct from) their emotional distress.
Id.
¶¶ 42-44. In short, there is no direct victim in this case, since none of the plaintiffs suffered a
physical impact or injury from defendants’ allegedly negligent acts. Plaintiffs cannot bootstrap
the requirements for bystander liability to sustain their direct victim claim. In other words,
plaintiffs’ contention that their physically manifested emotional distress is a “physical injury”
of the kind required by the impact rule, is not supported by
Schweihs
,
create a freestanding legal guarantee of present enjoyment of emotional well-being. Instead, it
protects people from certain negligent and intentional actions that injure them. [Citation.] Any
legal protection of emotional well-being is contingent on tort doctrines.” Plaintiffs have not
succeeded in their tort. We therefore agree with the trial court that because plaintiffs have not
alleged that defendants’ conduct caused any physical injury or impact, they have not stated a
cause of action for direct victim negligent infliction of emotional distress. Having found this,
we need not address the parties’ additional arguments about the element of duty. Accordingly,
counts XII-XVIII, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress, must be dismissed.
E. False Light Invasion of Privacy
Plaintiffs next contend that they sufficiently pleaded a false light invasion of privacy cause
of action against Little League and ESPN/Smith in counts XIX, XX, and XXI. The tort of false
light invasion of privacy protects a person’s interest in being let alone from false publicity.
Dubinsky v. United Airlines Master Executive Council
,
the February 11, 2015, press release, which announced that Little League was vacating and thereby revoking the Jackie Robinson West team’s regional and national championship titles. In their complaint, the parents pointed to several excerpts in the release, including that the tournament committee had decided that “Jackie Robinson West Little League and Illinois District 4 Administrator knowingly violated Little League International Rules and Regulations by placing players on their team who did not qualify to play because they lived outside the team’s boundaries.” The release also stated:
“Jackie Robinson West Little League used a falsified boundary map for their 2014 tournament, and that Jackie Robinson West Little League officials met with other leagues in Illinois District 4 to try to get the territory they wrongfully claimed was theirs for their 2014 tournament. The decision [by Little League International] is based on *24 falsifying documents and illegally expanding boundaries to include residences that would verify the players’ eligibility.”
In the release, Keener added that it was “unfortunate that the actions of adults have led to this outcome.”
¶ 85 In the complaint, the parents alleged these excerpts referred to them “by proxy” and implied
they had falsified documents, intentionally deceived Little League and the public, and placed their own interests above those of their children for publicity. The parents alleged these false statements thereby imputed they had committed “fraudulent, criminal offenses.” The statements portrayed them in a false light, they were highly offensive to a reasonable person, and Little League acted in reckless disregard for the truth. Plaintiffs now argue they sufficiently pleaded a false light cause of action. To bolster their
argument, they maintain the excerpts also constituted defamation per se , notwithstanding that the parents never filed a defamation action against Little League. While it is not necessary to be defamed to maintain a false light claim, the similarities
between the two causes of action may make certain restrictions and limitations equally
applicable, such as the innocent construction rule.
Moriarty
,
parents, the statements in the release are not defamatory
per se
, but rather are subject to the
innocent construction rule. Since there were no false statements directed at the parents, they
cannot sustain their false light action. See
Kapotas v. Better Government Ass’n
, 2015 IL App
(1st) 140534, ¶ 75 (noting that if the plaintiff fails to state a defamation
per se
cause of action,
a count alleging false light invasion of privacy based on the allegedly inherently defamatory
statements must fail, as well). Moreover, as set forth above, we do not believe the average
reader would equate cheating at little league with an indictable crime. Plaintiffs also do not
argue extrinsic evidence would aid their false light action, nor did they plead any special
damages. See
Green
,
count XXI, Coach Butler sued ESPN/Smith for the same cause of action. Those counts,
however, are premised on the same allegedly false statements that formed the basis of
plaintiffs’ defamation claims against ESPN/Smith. They must be dismissed for the same
reasons the defamation counts were dismissed. We have already found that most statements
Smith made about the parents and Coach Butler were protected opinion and thus cannot form
*25
the basis of a false light claim. See
Moriarty
,
¶ 90 F. Civil Conspiracy Plaintiffs next contend they alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for civil
conspiracy, which is an intentional tort wherein two or more people knowingly and voluntarily
participate in a common scheme to commit either an unlawful act or a lawful act in an unlawful
manner.
McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp.
,
sufficient facts to sustain a cause of action.
Farwell v. Senior Services Associates, Inc.
, 2012
IL App (2d) 110669, ¶ 22. Conclusory allegations that the defendants agreed to achieve some
illicit purpose and the mere characterization of a combination of acts as a conspiracy are
insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
Id.
;
Buckner v. Atlantic Plant Maintenance, Inc.
,
West, Inc./the Haleys, via various e-mail communications, conspired to conceal the claimеd eligibility problems in order to benefit from the team’s notoriety and success. Plaintiffs asserted that the claimed eligibility problems were first reported by Janes in September or October 2014, but left unaddressed for months thereafter. This was because Little League and Jackie Robinson West, Inc., “always intended to strip” the players of their championship title, acting recklessly towards them and their parents. Plaintiffs alleged this concealment was done to inflict emotional distress on plaintiffs and cast them in a false light. This count suffers from a number of deficiencies, the principal one being the absence of
facts showing that there was an actual agreement among these defendants. There are no specific
factual allegations that each of the defendants understood the general objectives of the
conspiratorial scheme and accepted them by acting in furtherance of those objectives.
Plaintiffs, instead, simply assert, in a conclusory fashion, the existence of a conspiracy, with
proof being that the defendants emailed one another. Again, this mere characterization of acts
by the defendants as a conspiracy is insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. See
Buckner
,
alleging defamation; counts VII and IX-XI, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress as to the parents; counts XII-XVIII, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress; counts XIX-XXI, alleging false light invasion of privacy; and count XXII, alleging civil conspiracy. As set forth, we reverse the trial court’s judgment as to counts I and II, respectively alleging breach of implied contract and promissory estoppel, insofar as we hold reinstatement of the championship title is a possible remedy. Thus, this ruling should be taken into consideration as the children’s case proceeds before the trial court in case No. 18 L 00178. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Notes
[1] Jackie Robinson West, Inc., is the corporate entity and appellee in this case but colloquially the Jackie Robinson West team, as well.
[2] Plaintiffs originally named Janes and his little league organization, Evergreen Park Athletic Association, as defendants in this lawsuit, but they have since been dismissed from the suit.
[3] Little League attached the eligibility affidavit and a version of the original charter map to their motion to dismiss the second-amended complaint.
[4] Plaintiffs allege the eligibility affidavit that was certified by the “District Administrator” (Kelley) was presented to the “Tournament Director” before the Illinois District Four Tournament (July 3-4, 2014), the Illinois Section Three Tournament (July 14-21), the Illinois State Championship (July 22- 27), the Great Lakes Regional Tournament (July 31-August 9), and thе Little League World Series Tournament (August 10-23). Plaintiffs did not attach an eligibility affidavit to their second-amended complaint. From the aforementioned affidavit that is included in the record on appeal, it appears that there was only one eligibility affidavit, and each of the directors of these tournaments signed and dated it before or at the time of the tournament play.
[5] The tournament committee, located at Little League headquarters in Williamsport, Virginia, was not the authority responsible for the regular season.
[6] The full news release is appended to this opinion.
[7] A printed version of the ESPN news segment is appended to this opinion.
[8] Notably, plaintiffs do not dispute that the corporate entity, including the Haleys, knew of eligibility issues, as that is one of the main allegations in their complaint.
[9] As set forth, this case comes before us via Rule 304(a), which applies where a final judgment in a
case involving multiple parties or multiple claims disposes of at least one, but not all, of such parties or
claims. Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys now contend counts XIV (for negligent infliction of
emotional distress) and XXII (for civil conspiracy), which were filed on behalf of the players, must be
dismissed for lack jurisdiction. They maintain that these counts “arise out of the same operative facts”
as count VIII (for intentional infliction of emotional distress), also filed on behalf of the players, which
remains pending before the trial court. Citing
Blumenthal v. Brewer
, 2016 IL 118781, ¶ 27, Jackie
Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys assert that “where one claim based on the same operative facts is stated
differently in multiple counts, the dismissal of fewer than all counts is not a final judgment as to the
party’s claims as required by Rule 304(a).”
This court, in an earlier order, denied their motion raising the same argument. We once again rejеct
it, finding Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys’ reliance on
Blumenthal
is misplaced.
Blumenthal
involved the division of property between an unmarried couple that had split. There, the dismissed
counterclaim, which was appealed through Rule 304(a), “sought precisely the same thing as the
underlying cause of action asserted by Blumenthal: division of the value of the parties’ Chicago home.”
Id.
¶ 26. Thus, in that case, dismissing the counterclaim did not dispose of “the entire controversy or a
separate part thereof,” which is what makes an order final and thus appealable.
Id.
¶¶ 23, 27. This case
does not involve domestic relations, marriage, or the division of property, which create their own
distinct jurisdictional challenges. See
In re Marriage of Teymour
,
[10] As set forth, the trial court did not dismiss counts VI and VIII, alleging that Little League and, Jackie Robinson West, Inc./the Haleys, intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the team’s players. While these counts could still theoretically support the civil conspiracy cause of action, as noted, count XXII remains deficient for other reasons.