Illinois Supreme Court Cites And Relies On Law Review Article Authored By CM Attorney Mark Sobczak
January 20, 2012
The Illinois Supreme Court finds a Law Review article authored by CM Appellate Practice Group Attorney Mark Sobczak authoritative in construing the Illinois Citizen Participation Act.
In Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443, Plaintiff was hired to be head basketball coach at Dixon High School in 1999, and, in 2003, he was given the additional position of athletic director. On April 23, 2008, the school board voted to remove him from his position as basketball coach. Two days later, on April 25, he filed this civil action for damages, naming numerous defendants and alleging that they campaigned to have him removed because they did not like his coaching style. He claimed defamation per se, false light invasion of privacy, civil conspiracy to intentionally interfere with prospective business advantage, and slander per se.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) under the Citizen Participation Act. They were successful in the circuit court and in the appellate court. The purpose of the SLAPP legislation is to protect citizens who are attempting to speak freely or petition their government from being harassed by retaliatory meritless lawsuits which are intended to chill the exercise of their constitutional rights and intended to impose burdensome expenses upon them. The special form of dismissal allowed for by this statute is a summary one, without discovery, and with attorney fees being allowed. The typical example of a SLAPP involves citizens who are complaining about zoning and who are sued by developers.
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed both the Circuit and Appellate Courts and construed the statute to mean that, for a motion to dismiss as a SLAPP to succeed, the plaintiff’s claim must be solely based on the movant’s rights of petition, speech, association, or participation in government. In reaching this construction of the Citizen Participation Act, The Illinois Supreme Court not only cited as authority a law review article authored by Clausen Miller's own Mark Sobczak of our Appellate Practice Group, but actually relied upon Mr. Sobczak's scholarship in construing the statute. Thus, the Court held that where a plaintiff files suit genuinely seeking relief for alleged defamation or intentional torts, the lawsuit is not solely based on the defendant’s constitutional rights and is not subject to dismissal as a SLAPP. The Act was not intended to protect those who commit tortious acts and then seek refuge in the immunity conferred by this statute. The Supreme Court declined to read into the statute a new privilege concerning defamation where the legislature had not made clear an intent to do so. It is possible that the defendants could spread lies about the plaintiff while at the same time genuinely petitioning government for redress, but such a situation cannot support dismissal as a SLAPP.
