Quantcast

Appeals court revives suit claiming McDonald's advertised falsely at O'Hare, says Cook County judge should have stepped down

COOK COUNTY RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Appeals court revives suit claiming McDonald's advertised falsely at O'Hare, says Cook County judge should have stepped down

Lawsuits
Law walker carlanthony

Illinois First District Appellate Justice Carl Walker | Illinoiscourts.gov

A suit against McDonald's for allegedly advertising false prices at O'Hare Airport, which had been dismissed, is back on the fryer, because an appeals panel has ruled the judge in the case should have granted plaintiff's request to step aside for another judge.

The Feb. 22 ruling was penned by Justice Carl Walker, with concurrence from Presiding Justice Michael Hyman and Justice Aurelia Pucinski, of Illinois First District Appellate Court. The decision favored Kansas woman Farah Gohari in her action against McDonald's in Cook County Circuit Court. The fast-food retailer is headquartered in Chicago.

Gohari filed for a class action against the burger chain in June 2016, alleging two McDonald's locations at O'Hare International Airport charged prices that were more, sometimes 30 percent more, than prices advertised on electronic menus. Gohari cited the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. 

Circuit Judge Kathleen Pantle presided over the case until retiring in July 2018. Circuit Judge Anna Loftus took over. 

During a hearing to address depositions in July 2019, Gohari made a motion to substitute another judge in place of Loftus, but Loftus denied the request. 

In October 2020, Loftus approved McDonald's motion to dismiss the case. Gohari then appealed, arguing Loftus should have been substituted in 2019 and consequently all her orders in the case, after she refused to be replaced, should be vacated. McDonald's countered that Gohari made the substitution motion too late in the proceedings.

Justice Walker noted the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure bars a motion to substitute, if the motion is filed after the presiding judge has already ruled on "substantial issues" pertaining to the merits of the case, or if a hearing is underway on the merits.  Examples would include rulings or hearings on motions to dismiss, for summary judgment and motions relating to allegations in the complaint.

Walker determined Loftus made two rulings before the substitution motion was put before her. One ruling was to decide the order in which she would consider a motion for leave to take depositions and a motion to amend the complaint. The other ruling was to decide the format for documents that Gohari addressed to her. Neither of these rulings qualified as a ruling on a "substantial" issue, according to Walker.

Walker also determined the hearing in question was called to address a motion requesting depositions, which did not involve the merits of the suit.

Walker concluded Loftus should have allowed the substitution motion, but because she did not, rulings she rendered after that point are to be tossed. The case was returned to circuit court for further proceedings.

Gohari has been represented by Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth Goldstein, of Krislov Associates, of Chicago.

McDonald's has been defended by David J. Doyle and Matthew H. Bunn, of Freeborn & Peters, of Chicago.

More News