Background
Tony Cole leased a mixed-use Chicago property owned for a time by Jin Lee. After two eviction actions Lee brought against Cole were dismissed, Cole sued Lee pro se in small claims court. Lee later sold the property, and the new owner eventually evicted Cole.
Cole’s amended complaint asserted wrongful eviction, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, and a Consumer Fraud Act claim. Following a simultaneous bench and jury trial, the jury found for Lee on three claims and the court found for Lee on the remaining two. The circuit court denied Cole’s posttrial motion to vacate, and Cole appealed pro se.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, struck Cole’s opening brief and dismissed the appeal for violations of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341. Although Cole argued that the trial court wrongly withheld two claims from the jury, limited his case presentation, and improperly conducted a simultaneous bench and jury trial, the appellate court did not reach those merits.
The court found that Cole repeatedly used inaccurate citations, including citing authorities for propositions they did not support and providing citations that did not correspond to the cases named. Those defects prevented meaningful review and shifted legal-research obligations to the court. Cole’s pro se status did not excuse compliance, particularly given his prior Rule 341 violations and prior dismissals for similar briefing defects.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant must accurately cite authority and support arguments under Rule 341.
- Pro se litigants are held to the same appellate briefing rules as represented parties.
- Repeated citation errors can justify striking a brief and dismissing an appeal without reaching the merits.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that appellate courts may impose the severe remedy of dismissal when defective briefing makes review impracticable. It also illustrates that a litigant’s history of similar briefing violations may weigh heavily in favor of dismissal.
The order was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).