Find Legal Information

JUSTICE APPLETON delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Michael R. Blumhorst, filed a claim forunemployment benefits. The Illinois Department of EmploymentSecurity (Department) denied his claim, whereupon he filed anadministrative appeal, which the Department's board of review(board) denied. He then filed this action for administrativereview, naming as defendants the Department, its Director, theboard, and each member of the board. Defendants filed a motion todismiss the complaint pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code ofCivil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2000)) on the ground thatplaintiff had failed to obtain the issuance of summonses within 35days after the board's decision, as section 3-103 of the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-103 (West 2000)) required. Thecircuit court denied the motion and reversed the board's decision. Defendants appeal, arguing (1) the circuit court erred in denyingtheir motion to dismiss and (2) the board's decision was notclearly erroneous. Because we agree with the first contention, weneed not consider the second. We reverse the circuit court'sjudgment.

On May 23, 2000, plaintiff lost his job at EPL Bio-Analytical Services in Harristown, Illinois, because of a change ofownership. He filed a claim for unemployment benefits for theperiod of June 15 through July 8, 2000. The Department denied hisclaim, and plaintiff filed an administrative appeal. On January29, 2001, the board issued a final decision denying the appeal.

The decision stated that it was "[d]ated and [m]ailed on[January] 29, 2001." Immediately under that mailing date was asection entitled "Notice Of Rights For Further Review By TheCourts," which stated: "If you are aggrieved and want to appeal,you must file a complaint for administrative review and havesummons issued in circuit court within 35 days from the abovemailing date." (Emphasis in original.)

On March 2, 2001, defendant filed a complaint foradministrative review. On March 14, 2001, the clerk of the circuitcourt issued summonses to defendants, and plaintiff served thesummonses by certified mail. In their motion to dismiss, defendants argued that plaintiff's failure to have summonses issued andserved on the board or its members during the 35-day period afterthe board's final decision barred the action for administrativereview. A docket entry for July 9, 2001, indicates that theparties appeared in a hearing on the motion. After "[a]rguments[were] heard," the circuit court took the motion under advisement. The docket entry for July 10, 2001, says:

"The [c]ourt has considered the pleadings onfile, oral arguments of the parties, as wellas the applicable statutory and case authority. *** There is no dispute that the[p]laintiff filed the [c]omplaint for[a]dministrative [r]eview within the requisite35-day period; however, summonses were notissued by the [c]ircuit [c]lerk's [o]fficewithin the requisite 35-day period as requiredby [section 3-103 of the Administrative ReviewLaw (735 ILCS 5/3-103 (West 2000))] ***. ***

The [c]ourt notes that the [p]laintiff isproceeding pro se, and that he did in facthave summonses signed by the [c]ircuit[c]lerk's [o]ffice ***.

*** The [c]ourt finds that the[p]laintiff has shown a good[-]faith effort tohave summonses issued within the 35-day statutory period so as to warrant relaxation of thefiling period ***. [Defendants'] [m]otion to[d]ismiss is [denied]. The [c]ourt finds thatthe summonses were timely issued[] and thatthe [d]efendants have clearly received timelynotice of the filing of this [c]omplaint."

On December 13, 2001, the circuit court set aside theboard's decision. This appeal followed.

We review de novo the trial court's ruling on defendants'motion to dismiss. Towne Realty, Inc. v. Shaffer, 331 Ill. App. 3d531, 535, 773 N.E.2d 47, 51 (2002).

Section 1100 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (820 ILCS405/1100 (West 2000)) provides: "Any decision of the [b]oard of[r]eview *** shall be reviewable only under and in accordance withthe provisions of the Administrative Review Law" (735 ILCS 5/3-101through 3-112 (West 2000)).

Section 3-103 of the Administrative Review Law provides: "Every action to review a final administrative decision shall be commenced by thefiling of a complaint and the issuance of asummons within 35 days from the date that acopy of the decision sought to be reviewed wasserved upon the party affected [thereby].

* * *

The method of service of the decisionshall be as provided in the Act governing theprocedure before the administrative agency,but if no method is provided, a decision shallbe deemed to have been served either when acopy of the decision is personally deliveredor when a copy of the decision is deposited inthe United States mail, in a sealed envelopeor package, with postage prepaid, addressed tothe party affected by the decision at his orher last known residence or place of business." 735 ILCS 5/3-103 (West 2000).

The parties agree that the board served its finaldecision upon plaintiff on January 29, 2001. Defendants cameforward with evidence that the circuit clerk issued the summonsesmore than 35 days after service of the board's decision. Theburden shifted to plaintiff to come forward with evidence that heattempted, in good faith, to obtain the issuance of the summonseswithin the 35-day period. See Lockett v. Chicago Police Board, 133Ill. 2d 349, 355, 549 N.E.2d 1266, 1268 (1990) ("[A] litigant mustshow a good-faith effort to *** secure issuance of summons withinthe 35 days in order to avoid dismissal"). Plaintiff had to comeforward with evidence that would have been admissible in opposinga motion for summary judgment (see Kedzie & 103rd CurrencyExchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill. 2d 112, 116, 619 N.E.2d 732, 735(1993)), e.g., pleadings or other admissions by defendants,affidavits, or testimony (see O'Rourke v. Access Health, Inc., 282Ill. App. 3d 394, 399-400, 668 N.E.2d 214, 218 (1996)).

The record does not appear to indicate that plaintiffpresented any such evidence. According to the docket entry of July7, 2001, in the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss, thecircuit court "heard" only "arguments" by the parties. Accordingto the docket entry of July 10, 2001, when ruling on the motion,the court considered only "the pleadings on file, oral arguments ofthe parties, as well as the applicable statutory and case authority." In an action for administrative review, the clerk of thecircuit court "shall issue summons upon request of the plaintiff." (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/2-201(a) (2000). There does notappear to be any evidence that plaintiff requested the issuance ofsummonses prior to March 14, 2001. Merely assuming that the clerkwill issue a summons does not qualify as a good-faith effort toobtain the issuance of the summons. Carver v. Nall, 186 Ill. 2d554, 559-60, 714 N.E.2d 486, 489 (1999).

Issuance of the summons within 35 days is not a jurisdictional requirement, but it is mandatory. Lockett, 133 Ill. 2d at355, 549 N.E.2d at 1268. Because plaintiff failed to come forwardwith evidence of a good-faith effort to obtain the issuance of thesummonses within 35 days after the board served its decision uponhim, the circuit court erred in denying defendants' motion todismiss. See Johnson v. Department of Public Aid, 251 Ill. App. 3d604, 606, 622 N.E.2d 50, 52 (1993).

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court'sjudgment.

Reversed.

KNECHT and McCULLOUGH, JJ., concur.