HOMEWORK #DONE APPELLATE BRIEF 1-25-1195FILED TODAY

No. 1-25-1195

─────────────────────────────────────────

In the

Appellate Court of Illinois

First Judicial District

──────────────────────────────────────────

CHYVETTE A. VALENTINE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SCOTTIE PIPPEN,

Defendant-Appellee, and

LARSA PIPPEN, CARL T. PIPPEN,

MELISSA PIPPEN, JASON GILER, et al.,

Defendants.

──────────────────────────

On Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,

County Department, Law Division, No. 24 L 2166

The Honorable Kathy M. Flanagan, Judge Presiding.

──────────────────────────

APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF

---

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Nature of the Case .................................................................... 4
2. Issues Presented for Review .................................................. 4
3. Statement of Jurisdiction ....................................................... 5
4. Statutes (Laws) Involved ....................................................... 5
5. Statement of Facts .................................................................. 5
6. Standard of Review ................................................................ 6
7. Points and Authorities for Argument .................................... 6
   A. Default Judgment Was Warranted .................................. 7
   B. Defendants’ Appearance Was Defective ....................... 7
   C. The DWP Order Violated Due Process .......................... 7
8. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief .............................................. 8
9. Certificate of Compliance ..................................................... 9
10. Certificate of Service ............................................................ 10

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes & Rules

• 735 ILCS 5/2-1301(d)
• 735 ILCS 5/2-203
• 735 ILCS 5/1-109
• Illinois Supreme Court Rules 12, 13(c)(1), 101–105, 181(a), 301, 303, 341
• 50 U.S.C. § 3931(b)(1) (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act)

Cases

• Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, 226 Ill. 2d 334 (2007)
• Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Karbowski, 2014 IL App (1st) 130112
• Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432
• Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill. 2d 495 (1991)
• Bryson v. News America Publs., Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77 (1996)
• People ex rel. Reid v. Adkins, 48 Ill. App. 3d 598 (1st Dist. 1977)

 

1. NATURE OF THE CASE

1.1 This case arises from Plaintiff–Appellant’s civil action against Defendants–Appellees for various claims properly filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County.

1.2 All Defendants were duly served between October and December 2024. Defendants failed to appear or plead within the time required by law.

1.3 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment and Prove-Up, which was set for hearing before the assigned judge, Hon. Maire Dempsey, on May 22, 2025.

1.4 Before that scheduled hearing, Judge Kathy M. Flanagan, who was not the assigned judge, dismissed the matter for want of prosecution on May 2, 2025. On June 16, 2025, Judge Flanagan also entered an order striking all future appearances.

1.5 Plaintiff appeals from those orders, contending that the trial court erred in dismissing the action and in failing to enter default judgment against Defendants.

2. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

2.1 Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the action for want of prosecution where Defendants had been duly served, failed to appear, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment was pending.

2.2 Whether the appearance entered on May 2, 2025, without compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 13(c)(1), was a legal nullity.

2.3 Whether the dismissal orders entered by Judge Flanagan, without notice, hearing, or authority as the assigned judge, violated due process under the Illinois Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

3.1 The trial court entered its dismissal order on May 2, 2025, and a subsequent order on June 16, 2025.

3.2 Both orders disposed of Plaintiff’s claims, making them final and appealable.

3.3 Plaintiff timely filed her Notice of Appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 and 303(a).

3.4 This Court has jurisdiction under Article VI, § 6 of the Illinois Constitution and Rule 301.

4. STATUTES (LAWS) INVOLVED

• 735 ILCS 5/2-1301(d) (default judgments)
• 735 ILCS 5/2-203 (service of summons)
• 735 ILCS 5/1-109 (verification and perjury provision)
• Illinois Supreme Court Rule 181(a) (time to appear or plead)
• Illinois Supreme Court Rule 13(c)(1) (written appearance requirement)
• Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301, 303, 341 (appellate procedure)
• 50 U.S.C. § 3931(b)(1) (Servicemembers Civil Relief Act)

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5.1 Between October and December 2024, all Defendants were served in compliance with Illinois law.

5.2 Defendants failed to file appearances or responsive pleadings within the thirty-day period required under Supreme Court Rule 181(a).

5.3 Plaintiff filed Proof of Service on April 4, 2025.

5.4 On May 2, 2025, Judge Kathy M. Flanagan (not the assigned judge) dismissed the case for want of prosecution, even though Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and Prove-Up was scheduled before Judge Maire Dempsey on May 22, 2025.

5.5 On June 16, 2025, Judge Flanagan entered another order striking all future appearances without notice, motion, or hearing.

5.6 Plaintiff filed a timely Notice of Appeal.

6. STANDARD OF REVIEW

6.1 Orders dismissing a case for want of prosecution and rulings concerning default judgment are reviewed de novo when they raise legal issues, and for abuse of discretion when judicial discretion is involved. Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 36.

7. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FOR ARGUMENT

A. Default Judgment Was Warranted

• Authority: 735 ILCS 5/2-1301(d); Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, 226 Ill. 2d 334 (2007); Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Karbowski, 2014 IL App (1st) 130112.
• Argument: Defendants failed to appear or plead after proper service. Under Illinois law, this failure warrants default judgment, with all well-pled allegations deemed admitted. The trial court erred in dismissing rather than entering default.

B. Defendants’ Appearance Was Defective

• Authority: Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 13(c)(1); Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432.
• Argument: No written appearance was filed as required by Rule 13(c)(1). Any oral or informal appearance was a nullity. The trial court improperly treated Defendants as having appeared.

C. The DWP Orders Violated Due Process

• Authority: People ex rel. Reid v. Adkins, 48 Ill. App. 3d 598 (1st Dist. 1977); Illinois Const. art. I, § 2; U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
• Argument: Judge Flanagan was not the assigned judge and lacked authority to dismiss the case. The dismissals were entered without notice, hearing, or opportunity to be heard, violating Plaintiff’s rights to due process.

 

8. CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff–Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Reverse the May 2, 2025, dismissal for want of prosecution.
2. Vacate June 16, 2025, order striking future appearances.
3. Remand with instructions to reinstate the case and proceed with Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and Prove-Up.
4. Declare the May 2 and June 16 orders void ab initio; and
5. Grant such further relief as justice may require.