Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Zamora v. Montiel

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Second District

August 19, 2013

JUAN ZAMORA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RICARDO MONTIEL, NEWSBOY DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC., and UNIQUE DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees (Cherie Payne and Paul Payne, Defendants).

Modified upon denial of rehearing November 18, 2013.

Held [*]

Plaintiff’s failure to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the trial court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his claims against defendants deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction over his appeal, which he filed pursuant to the Supreme Court Rule 304(a) finding in the order, notwithstanding his contention that the trial court’s order granting defendants leave to file a third-party complaint rendered the Rule 304(a) finding in the order dismissing plaintiff’s action ineffective, since merely obtaining leave to file a third-party claim did not trigger the need for a new Rule 304(a) finding.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, No. 09-L-987; the Hon. Dorothy French Mallen, Judge, presiding.

Ryan M. Griffin, Scott M. Duxbury, and Timothy J. Winfield, all of Goldstein, Bender & Romanoff, of Chicago, for appellant.

Jeffrey S. Barger, of Esp Kreuzer Cores LLP, of Wheaton, for appellees.

Panel JUSTICE HUDSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Hutchinson and Schostok concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

HUDSON, JUSTICE.

¶ 1 I. INTRODUCTION

¶ 2 Defendants, Ricardo Montiel, Newsboy Delivery Systems, Inc., and Unique Distribution Services, Inc., move to dismiss this appeal, which was filed by plaintiff, Juan Zamora. Defendants contend that we lack jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we agree with defendants, and accordingly, we grant their motion and dismiss this appeal.

¶ 3 On August 31, 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint sounding in negligence against defendants and also against Cherie and Paul Payne (the Payne defendants). The following procedural history of the case is relevant to determining whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal:

(1) March 24, 2010: the trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint as it pertained to defendants, finding that it was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/5(a) (West 2008)), and the court included an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2006) finding in this order;
(2) April 23, 2010: plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal;
(3) June 29, 2010: the trial court granted the Payne defendants leave to file a third-party complaint seeking ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.