The Illinois Appellate Court has upheld the dismissal of a motor vehicle negligence case due to significant delays in serving the defendant. Plaintiff Anthony Rizzuto's complaint, filed on November 2, 2020, against Alison Soja was dismissed by the Cook County Circuit Court after Rizzuto failed to serve Soja for over two years and four months. The case stems from a traffic collision that occurred on November 2, 2018.
Rizzuto initially filed his complaint with the help of attorney Thomas Kantas. However, Kantas did not serve the original summons or subsequent alias summonses issued in January 2021. Over the next two years, several status hearings were held without any progress in serving Soja. In January 2023, Rizzuto changed his legal representation to Peter Papoutsis and finally served Soja in March 2023.
Soja moved to dismiss the case under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b), arguing that Rizzuto had not exercised due diligence in serving her within a reasonable time frame. The court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice. Rizzuto contended that "special circumstances," specifically Kantas's professional misconduct in other cases, justified his delay. He claimed that Kantas lied about the status of his case and concealed his lack of action.
Rizzuto supported his claims by submitting charges filed by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) against Kantas for unrelated cases involving other clients. The ARDC accused Kantas of failing to act diligently, making false statements to courts, and creating false documents with forged court stamps. However, these charges did not mention Rizzuto's case.
The appellate court found no evidence supporting Rizzuto's claims of special circumstances related to his own case. It emphasized that plaintiffs are generally bound by their attorneys' actions or negligence. The court also noted that even if documentary evidence like police reports still existed, memories of witnesses would have faded over nearly six years since the incident.
The court reviewed factors such as the length of time taken to serve process and efforts made by Rizzuto but found them insufficient to avoid dismissal under Rule 103(b). The appellate court concluded that there was no abuse of discretion by the circuit court in dismissing the case with prejudice.
Attorneys involved include Peter A. Papoutsis for appellant Anthony Rizzuto and Ellen J. O’Rourke along with Katherine E. Linehan from Michael D. Gallo & Associates for appellee Alison Soja. The presiding judge was Mary Kathleen McHugh under Case ID No. 20 M5 4642.