Background
On July 22, 2025, Emma Nyssen filed a petition for a stalking no-contact order against Shahryar Zarrinmehr in the Circuit Court of Cook County. She alleged that on July 14, 2025, Zarrinmehr followed her for approximately a block while she walked her dog, blocked her path until she responded, and watched her enter her apartment building. That same evening, she returned home to find him waiting in her building’s lobby, after which he followed her up the stairs while asking unprovoked questions. The following day, he allegedly called her building multiple times requesting to speak with her.
The trial court entered an emergency stalking no-contact order on July 22, 2025, which was extended several times. On November 5, 2025, after a hearing at which the court stated its findings orally for transcription, the court entered a plenary stalking no-contact order. The order prohibited Zarrinmehr from committing or threatening stalking, having any contact with Nyssen by any means (including through third parties and social media), coming within 100 feet of her residence or workplace, and possessing a Firearm Owner’s Identification card or purchasing firearms.
Zarrinmehr appealed pro se, arguing that the trial court relied on a factual finding he claimed the transcript contradicted, improperly credited double hearsay without corroboration, expressed uncertainty about the need for ongoing protection, and that the evidence failed to establish a repeated pattern of conduct satisfying the statute’s requirements.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the plenary stalking no-contact order, holding that Zarrinmehr failed to provide a sufficiently complete record on appeal to support his claims of error. As the appellant, Zarrinmehr bore the burden of furnishing the court with the record necessary to review his challenges — including a report of proceedings from the November 5, 2025, hearing. He submitted only the common law record and provided no transcript, bystander’s report, or agreed statement of facts as permitted substitutes under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323.
Without a report of proceedings, the court explained it had no way to determine what evidence, testimony, or arguments were presented at the plenary hearing, or what reasoning the trial court employed in entering its order. Under the established rule of Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984), any doubts arising from an incomplete record are resolved against the appellant, and the trial court’s order is presumed to have conformed with law and rested on a sufficient factual basis. Because the court could not assess whether the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence, it had no basis to disturb the result below.
The court also noted significant deficiencies in Zarrinmehr’s brief, which failed to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h): his statement of facts was argumentative rather than accurate and neutral, and his brief contained no citations to legal authority. The court reiterated that pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as attorneys and are afforded no more lenient treatment.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant who challenges a trial court’s factual findings must include the report of proceedings — or an acceptable substitute such as a bystander’s report or agreed statement of facts — in the appellate record; failure to do so is fatal to a merits challenge.
- Under Foutch v. O’Bryant, gaps in the appellate record are presumed to support the trial court’s judgment, and all doubts from an incomplete record are resolved against the appellant.
- Pro se litigants in Illinois are held to the same procedural rules as attorneys; noncompliance with briefing requirements under Rule 341(h) — such as an argumentative statement of facts and absence of legal citations — will not be excused.
- This decision is filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is non-precedential except in the limited circumstances specified by Rule 23(e)(1).
Why It Matters
This case is a practical reminder that substantive appellate arguments — however colorable — cannot be reached when the appellant fails to build an adequate record. Attorneys advising clients who seek to appeal protective orders must ensure that transcripts are ordered and filed promptly, particularly where the trial court’s oral findings are the very rulings being contested. The absence of a transcript here left the appellate court with no means to evaluate claims of evidentiary error or insufficient findings.
The decision also reinforces that courts will not relax procedural standards for self-represented parties. Pro se respondents in protective-order proceedings who wish to challenge rulings on appeal face the same technical requirements as counsel, and missteps in briefing or record preparation will be treated as waivers rather than corrected by judicial accommodation.