Doe v. Parrillo

Decision Date18 November 2021
Docket NumberDocket No. 126577
Parties Jane DOE, Appellant, v. Beau PARRILLO, Appellee.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Daniel J. Voelker, of Voelker Litigation Group, of Chicago, and Randall B. Gold, of Fox & Fox, S.C., of Monona, Wisconsin, for appellant.

Ronald F. Neville, Terence J. Mahoney, and Jennifer Mann, of Neville & Mahoney, of Chicago, for appellee.

JUSTICE THEIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 The central issue in this case is whether the appellate court erred in reducing the punitive damages awarded by the jury to plaintiff Jane Doe against defendant Beau Parrillo. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the appellate court's judgment in part, affirm the appellate court's judgment in part, and affirm the trial court's judgment on the jury's verdict.

¶ 2 BACKGROUND

¶ 3 This case began in 2016 when Doe filed her complaint and ended in 2019 when the trial court denied Parrillo's posttrial motion. The intervening 30 months involved delays and disputes that require an extended description.

¶ 4 On December 15, 2016, Doe filed a five-count complaint against Parrillo. Count I alleged that, on October 5, 2015, at 5:55 a.m. at Doe's residence in Chicago, Parrillo struck and choked her and "made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature" with her in violation of section 12-3.2(a)(2) of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Criminal Code), which prohibits domestic battery against any family or household member. See 720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West 2014). Count II alleged that, on November 5, 2015, at 11 p.m. at the Swissotel in downtown Chicago where Doe was a guest, Parrillo struck her and "made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature" with her in violation of section 12-3.2(a)(2) of the Criminal Code. Count III alleged that, on November 9, 2015, at 11 p.m. at the Swissotel where Doe was a guest, Parrillo "grabbed [Doe] using his hands with force and violence and then shoved her against the wall" and "made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature" with her in violation of section 12-3.2(a)(2) of the Criminal Code. Count IV alleged that, on December 12, 2015, at 6:30 a.m. at the Inn of Chicago in downtown Chicago where Doe was a guest, Parrillo "physically restrained [Doe] with force and violence against her will," struck her face and mouth with a closed fist, struck her in the head with a glass coffee maker, strangled her neck with his hands, and "made physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature" with her in violation of section 12-3.2(a)(2) of the Criminal Code. Count V alleged that, on March 23, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. at the Westin hotel in Lombard where Doe was a guest, Parrillo "physically restrained Plaintiff with force and violence against her will, strangled her neck with his hands, and "sexually assaulted and raped" her "by knowingly inflicting sexual intrusion and penetration of her vagina against her will and without her consent" in violation of section 11-1.20(a)(1) of the Criminal Code. See id. § 11-1.20(a)(1). The final count further alleged that Parrillo was at the hotel in violation of an order of protection.

¶ 5 After months of repeated, unsuccessful attempts by Cook County sheriff's deputies to serve Parrillo with the complaint, Doe obtained an order from the trial court appointing a special process server. Apparently, service was accomplished because, on April 6, 2017, the trial court entered an order giving Parrillo 28 days to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. On May 4, 2017, attorney Allison Muth filed an appearance for Parrillo, as well as an answer to the complaint denying the substance of Doe's allegations.

¶ 6 On October 20, 2017, Doe's attorney attended a case management conference. Muth did not. The trial court granted Doe leave to amend her complaint to seek punitive damages. The court further found that Parrillo was in default and that "the complaint is confessed against" him. That day, Doe filed an amended complaint, which was similar to her initial complaint, except that each count sought "punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the conduct of the Defendant and deter others from committing similar torts."

¶ 7 A month later, Parrillo filed a motion for substitution of judge as of right, as well as a motion to vacate the default against Parrillo. In the motion to vacate, Muth stated that she was "in trial in the Fourth District of the Circuit Court of Cook County and was unexpectedly unable to attend the case management status call." On December 15, 2017, Parrillo withdrew the motion for substitution of judge and received leave to answer Doe's amended complaint by January 11, 2018. On January 10, Parrillo filed an answer to the amended complaint, again denying the substance of Doe's allegations. Parrillo also filed affirmative defenses, announcing that he "may rely" on the defenses of consent, self-defense, and provocation.

¶ 8 The parties engaged in discovery. On October 16, 2018, Doe filed a motion for sanctions, arguing that Parrillo had "continuously abused discovery rules" and "disobeyed this Court's orders" by failing to produce certain documents requested by Doe. According to Doe, Parrillo had "made it nearly impossible to prosecute this lawsuit." Doe requested a default judgment against Parrillo or, alternatively, a bar to his testimony at trial. Doe also requested monetary sanctions. On November 2, 2018, the trial court granted Doe's motion, finding that Parrillo had shown "a deliberate, continuous disregard" of discovery rules and court orders. The trial court barred his trial testimony.

¶ 9 On November 21, 2018, the trial court vacated that order and entered and continued Doe's motion for sanctions, granting Parrillo time to respond. He did so the following week, essentially insisting that he had answered or objected to all written discovery requests and intended to comply with all court-ordered requests. He conceded that

"he is a man of financial means, but the Plaintiff has no right to assume liability based [on] Mr. Parrillo's financial status. Plaintiff would accomplish a great deal more by focusing on the elements of pleading a prima facie case, and the Plaintiff's financial ability to pay a judgement."

¶ 10 On December 7, 2018, the trial court ordered that discovery was closed. On January 7, 2019, more than two years after Doe filed her complaint, the court certified the case for trial on January 14, 2019. On January 14, Robert Holstein filed an appearance on behalf of Parrillo, and Muth filed an emergency motion for a continuance of the trial date. That motion mentioned Holstein's appearance and stated that he had been "briefed of the issues for trial and tendered the discovery" but would need additional time to prepare for Parrillo's defense. The motion continued, claiming:

"*** Defendant, Beau Parrillo received news on the eve of trial that his father, Richard Parrillo Sr., was hospitalized in critical health in Florida. Mr. Parrillo had to fly to Florida this morning and will be inavailble [sic] this week for his trial.
*** In addition, it has come to the attention of the Defense that two critical eyewitnesses are unavailable for the week of January 14th, 2019.
*** [A]ttorney Muth's mother is in failing health, and has recently just come home from the hospital. Attorney Muth is her caregiver, and therefore Muth will not be able to adequately prepare for trial and take the time for a Jury trial this week, as it is expected this trial will take at least three full days."

Though Muth represented that she intended to be available for trial "in the next two weeks," she requested a 30- to 60-day continuance.

¶ 11 The emergency motion was supported by two affidavits: one from Parrillo and one from Muth. In his affidavit, Parrillo stated:

"*** [A]t approximately 10:30pm, on January 13, 2019, I received a call that my father, Richard Parrillo Sr., had been hospitalized at Aventura Hospital and Medical Center in Aventura, Florida.
*** Due to the nature of his diagnosis, it was imperative that I went on the next flight out of Chicago to Aventura, Florida as soon as possible to be with my father.
*** I took the first flight I could get to Fort Lauderdale at 8:20am on January 14, 2019.
*** I informed my counsel, Allison Muth, on the morning of January 14, 2019, as to my need to leave the state and be with my father, and asked her to ask the Court for a continuance of this trial, so that I could focus on my father's health.
*** I am currently still in Aventura, Florida, and as of now, I am not sure if my father's health will improve, and that he will be stable enough for me to leave him to attend trial.
*** I intend on returning to Chicago as soon as possible, and will be present for my trial if the date of trial could be changed to a later date."

¶ 12 In her affidavit, Muth stated:

"*** [O]n the morning of January, 14, 2019,1 received a call from my client, Mr. Beau Parrillo, that his father, Mr. Richard Parrillo Sr., had been hospitalized in critical health at Adventura Hospital in Miami, Florida.
*** Due to the nature of the situation, Beau Parrillo needed to fly on an 8:20am flight from Chicago to Miami to be with his father and is unable to attend his trial today.
*** I intend on using Beau Parrillo as a key witness in this trial.
*** [M]y own mother, is suffering from medical issues and has just gotten out of the hospital and needs care and cannot be left alone for long periods of time, as she is still weak. I am her caregiver, along with my brother. Therefore, having a jury trial this week would place a burden on my family. I expect my mother's health to improve in the next few weeks so I can return to practicing law full time.
*** I believe it will be in the best interest of both my client and myself to continue this trial to a later date when these unforeseen circumstances are no longer an issue that will hinder trial."

¶ 13 On the evening of January 14, Doe filed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • McQueen v. Green
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • April 21, 2022
    ...is the result of passion, partiality, or corruption. Deal , 127 Ill. 2d at 204, 130 Ill.Dec. 200, 537 N.E.2d 267 (1989) ; see Doe v. Parrillo , 2021 IL 126577, ¶ 38, 452 Ill.Dec. 512, 185 N.E.3d 1248 (confirming that a jury's assessment of punitive damages will be reversed only when the man......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT