Background
Christina Veasley sued on behalf of the estate of her daughter, Keyani Thomas, alleging that Thomas was fatally struck by a vehicle in Alton, Illinois, where streetlights were not working properly. Her first amended complaint asserted negligence claims against Ameren Illinois, driver Royce Richardson, the City of Alton, the Illinois Department of Transportation, and John Doe.
Ameren and IDOT filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and properly noticed them for a May 22, 2025, hearing. Veasley did not file responses to those motions, and her counsel did not attend the hearing. The circuit court dismissed the claims against Ameren, IDOT, Alton, and John Doe with prejudice, even though Alton had neither moved to dismiss the amended complaint nor noticed a dismissal motion for hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the dismissals with prejudice as to Ameren and IDOT. Because Veasley did not contest their motions in the circuit court, her appellate arguments against dismissal were raised for the first time on appeal and therefore forfeited. Her failure to file a reply brief addressing the appellees’ forfeiture argument provided an additional basis for forfeiture. The court consequently did not reach the merits of Ameren’s or IDOT’s asserted grounds for dismissal.
The court vacated the dismissal as to Alton. Alton had not filed a motion directed at the first amended complaint and had not served notice that its earlier motion against the original complaint would be heard. Because the record supplied no proper procedural basis for dismissing Alton, the appellate court remanded the claim against the city for further proceedings without addressing its merits.
Key Takeaways
- A party that fails to oppose a properly noticed motion to dismiss in the circuit court generally forfeits arguments against that motion on appeal.
- Failing to file a reply brief addressing an appellee’s forfeiture argument may itself result in forfeiture.
- A court procedurally errs by dismissing an amended complaint as to a defendant that filed no motion directed at that pleading and gave no notice of a dismissal hearing.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that preservation rules can determine an appeal without any review of the substantive grounds for dismissal. Attorneys must respond to dispositive motions and appear at noticed hearings if they intend to challenge the resulting rulings on appeal.
At the same time, a party’s failure to appear does not authorize dismissal of claims that were not properly placed before the court. The decision leaves the claim against Alton open for further proceedings while ending the claims against Ameren and IDOT.