Mund v. Brown

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 5th District Appellate » 2009 » Mund v. Brown

Mund v. Brown

State: Illinois

Court: 5th District Appellate

Docket No: 5-08-0178 Rel

Case Date: 08/21/2009

Preview:NO. 5-08-0178
NOTICE Decision filed 08/21/09. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti tion for Rehearing or th e

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT ________________________________________________________________________ LOUIS I. MUND, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) St. Clair County. ) v. ) No. 05-L-83 ) REBECCA BROWN, PAUL D. BROWN, ) ANNAMALAI & BROWN, ROBERT W. ) FURKIN, and JAMES R. FURKIN, ) Honorable ) Lloyd A. Cueto, Defendants-Appellants. ) Judge, presiding. ________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE SPOM ER delivered the opinion of the court: The defendants, Rebecca Brown, Paul D. Brown, Annamalai & Brown, Robert W. Furkin, and James R. Furkin, appeal from the March 14, 2008, order of the circuit court of St. Clair County that denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the present lawsuit pursuant to section 15 of the Citizen Participation Act (the Act) (735 ILCS 110/15 (West Supp. 2007)). On September 4, 2008, we dismissed, for a lack of appellate jurisdiction, the crossappeal of the plaintiff, Louis I. Mund, from the February 26, 2007, order that granted defendant Robert W. Furkin's motion to dismiss count XVIII of Mund's second amended complaint. For the following reasons, we now dismiss the defendants' appeal for a lack of appellate jurisdiction. FACTS On February 2, 2006, the plaintiff filed a 23-count second amended complaint alleging, inter alia , abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, arising from a lawsuit the defendants previously filed against the plaintiff

disposition of the same.

1

in federal court. On December 5, 2006, defendant Robert Furkin filed a motion to dismiss count XVIII against him, which alleged a breach of contract. On February 26, 2007, the court granted Furkin's motion but dismissed count XVII, although it appears from the pleadings and the notice of cross-appeal that the court intended to dismiss count XVIII. On January 17, 2008, Paul Brown and Annamalai & Brown moved to dismiss counts VI through XV against them pursuant to section 15 of the Act (735 ILCS 110/15 (West Supp. 2007)). The Act aims to protect defendants from "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public

Participation" (SLAPPs), which harass citizens for exercising constitutional rights, such as the right to petition the government. See 735 ILCS 110/5 (W est Supp. 2007). On February 1, 2008, Robert Furkin and Rebecca Brown also moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the same basis. On March 14, 2008, the trial court denied both motions to dismiss. On April 10, 2008, the defendants filed a timely notice of appeal. On April 17, 2008, the plaintiff filed a timely cross-appeal. On August 13, 2008, this court, on its own motion, entered a rule-to-show-cause order, addressing the issue of appellate court jurisdiction over both the appeal and the crossappeal. The order questioned whether the Act violates the separation-of-powers clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. II,

Download Mund v. Brown.pdf