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 L2166
The
Honorable Kathy M. Flanagan, Judge Presiding.
PETITION
FOR REHEARING
(Pursuant
to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 367)
NOW
COMES Plaintiff Appellant, Chyvette A. Valentine, appearing pro se, and
respectfully petitions this Honorable Court for rehearing pursuant to Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 367, and in support thereof states as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
This Court’s dismissal of
the instant appeal conflicts with controlling Illinois precedent governing
appellate jurisdiction under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a). Unless
corrected, the dismissal effectively nullifies Appellant’s right to appellate
review of a final judgment entered in the trial court and results in manifest
injustice.
II. ORDERS WITH RULE
304(a) FINDINGS ARE APPEALABLE
1. Illinois Supreme Court
Rule 304(a) expressly authorizes appellate review where a judgment disposes of
fewer than all claims or parties, so long as the trial court enters a written
finding that “there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal.”
2. The Illinois Supreme
Court has consistently recognized that such orders are final and appealable: In
re Marriage of Gutman, 232 Ill. 2d 145, 153 (2008): “Rule 304(a) expressly
authorizes appeals from final judgments as to fewer than all parties or claims
where an appropriate finding has been made.” Blumenthal v. Brewer, 2016 IL
118781, ¶ 23: “A judgment that resolves a distinct claim in a multi-claim
proceeding is final and appealable if accompanied by Rule 304(a) language.”
3. Here, the trial court
entered a default judgment matter set before Judge Maire Dempsey on May 22,
2025, which disposed of claims against certain defendants. That judgment is not
interlocutory it is a final adjudication properly subject to appellate review.
4. Dismissing this appeal
despite the trial court’s dispositive judgment directly conflicts with the
above authorities and deprives this Court of jurisdiction it is required to
exercise.
III. PUBLIC POLICY FAVORS
REVIEW ON THE MERITS
5. Illinois courts have
long recognized that jurisdictional rules should be applied in a manner that
protects, rather than defeats, the right to appellate review: Lewanski v.
Lewanski, 59 Ill. App. 3d 805, 817 (1st Dist. 1978): “Rules governing appeals
should be liberally construed to afford parties their right to a review on the
merits wherever possible.”
6. If the dismissal
stands, Appellant will be denied appellate review of a valid final judgment,
contrary to the strong public policy favoring consideration of cases on their
merits.
IV. DISMISSAL VIOLATES
DUE PROCESS AND ACCESS TO COURTS
7. The Illinois
Constitution guarantees all people the right to seek redress through the
courts. Article I, §12 provides that “[a]ll courts shall be open; and every
person shall have remedy by due course of law.”
8. Dismissing this appeal
effectively denies Appellant access to a court of review for a valid, final
judgment, thereby violating her constitutional right to a remedy and due
process.
9. Illinois courts have
recognized that procedural dismissals that prevent a party from having a full
hearing on the merits may constitute a deprivation of constitutional rights:
See People v. Simmons,
189 Ill. 2d 184, 191 (2000): procedural bars cannot override fundamental due
process protections. See Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 2011 IL App
(1st) 102572, ¶ 29: “Courts must be careful not to deny litigants the
opportunity to have their claims decided on the merits where a final judgment
exists.”
10. Accordingly,
reinstating the appeal is necessary to preserve Appellant’s constitutional
rights, ensure compliance with Illinois law, and avoid manifest injustice.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, for the
foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully prays that this Honorable Court:
1. Grant rehearing under
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 367.
2. Reinstate the appeal
for full consideration on the merits, including the default judgment set before
Judge Maire Dempsey on May 22, 2025; and
3. Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
