Gegenhuber v. Hystopolis Production, Inc., 1-95-0051
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Citation | 213 Ill.Dec. 850,660 N.E.2d 107,277 Ill.App.3d 429 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-95-0051,1-95-0051 |
| Parties | , 213 Ill.Dec. 850 John GEGENHUBER and Cynthia Orthal, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HYSTOPOLIS PRODUCTION, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 27 December 1995 |
Page 107
v.
HYSTOPOLIS PRODUCTION, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
First District, Third Division.
Page 108
[213 Ill.Dec. 851] Robert E. Zeitner, Chicago, for Defendant-Appellant.
Gregory A. Adamski, Karen Conti, Chicago, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Justice TULLY delivered the opinion of the court:
Plaintiffs, John Gegenhuber and Cynthia Orthal, filed this action in the circuit court of Cook County against defendant, Hystopolis Productions, Inc. (Hystopolis), seeking injunctive and monetary relief. On March 24, 1993, plaintiffs failed to appear at a status call and the circuit court entered an order for the dismissal for want of prosecution. On April 21, 1993, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal. The trial court granted the motion on the same date, although a written order was not recorded due to clerical error. On [277 Ill.App.3d 430] September 26, 1994, a judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a second motion to vacate the dismissal for want of prosecution on September 30, 1994, after a clerk alerted them that a written order had not been entered on the original motion. The circuit court entered the order granting the second motion on October 21, 1994. Four days later, defendants moved to vacate the October 21, 1994 order vacating the dismissal for want of prosecution. This motion was denied. It is from this order that defendant now appeals pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 301 (134 Ill.2d R. 301, 303.)
For the reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court as modified below.
These facts are not disputed by defendant. Hystopolis is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation which runs a puppet theater. Gegenhuber, Orthal, Larry Basgall, and Michael Schwabe created, designed, construed, produced, directed and performed an adult puppet show, The Adding Machine, based on the play by Elmer Rice. The show has been nationally and internationally recognized for its excellence in puppetry in the Chicago area as well as on an international level.
A dispute arose between the parties, where Hystopolis, and its employees, Schwabe, and Basgall, falsely claimed that the sets, costumes, and puppets of The Adding Machine belonged only to Hystopolis, and falsely advised the public that Schwabe and Basgall were the sole artistic force behind the show. Plaintiffs also alleged that Hystopolis and its employees wrongly kept to themselves all revenues relating to the show. Plaintiffs sued for injunctive and monetary relief in the circuit court, seeking proper credit for the creation, design, construction and direction of The Adding Machine. In addition, plaintiffs wanted an accounting for profits, damages,
Page 109
[213 Ill.Dec. 852] and the possession of the puppet characters of The Adding Machine.A preliminary injunction was issued on January 10, 1992. A status call was scheduled on March 28, 1993, which plaintiffs missed. The trial court entered a dismissal for want of prosecution. On April 21, 1993, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the dismissal, which was granted on April 29, 1993. However, due to clerical error, a written order was not recorded on that same date.
Following the vacation of the dismissal for want of prosecution, both parties participated in a replevin proceeding, appeared numerous times in court, engaged in extensive motion practice, substituted attorneys, requested production of documents, and prepared for trial. Trial in the matter was set for September 26, 1994. On this date, the lower court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of [277 Ill.App.3d 431] $50,000 and permanently enjoined defendants from performing the puppet shows without properly crediting plaintiffs.
On September 30, 1994, plaintiffs filed the second motion to vacate dismissal for want of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heinrich v. Counter, 2–12–1333.
...judgment 30 days after the entry of judgment, unless a timely postjudgment motion is filed. Gegenhuber v. Hystopolis Production, Inc., 277 Ill.App.3d 429, 431, 213 Ill.Dec. 850, 660 N.E.2d 107 (1995). A timely postjudgment motion not only extends [7 N.E.3d 901] the trial court's jurisdictio......
-
People v. Vara, Docket No. 121823
...case may require ." (Emphases added.) Ill. S. Ct. R. 366(a) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994); see also Gegenhuber v. Hystopolis Production, Inc. , 277 Ill. App. 3d 429, 432, 213 Ill.Dec. 850, 660 N.E.2d 107 (1995) (citing Rule 366(a)(3) and holding "[a]s a reviewing court, we have the power to correct c......
-
Johnson v. Target Stores, Inc., No. 1-02-1368
...of judgment, not to alter the actual judgment of the court'); Gegenhuber [v. Hystopolis Production, Inc.], 277 Ill.App.3d [429,] 432, 213 Ill. Dec. 850, 660 N.E.2d [107,] 110 [(1995)]." In re Marriage of Breslow, 306 Ill.App.3d 41, 50, 239 Ill.Dec. 111, 713 N.E.2d 642 In the present case, t......
-
Jones v. Unknown Heirs or Legatees of Fox, 3-99-0512.
...has been filed. Beck v. Stepp, 144 Ill.2d 232, 162 Ill.Dec. 10, 579 N.E.2d 824 (1991); Gegenhuber v. Hystopolis Production, Inc., 277 Ill.App.3d 429, 213 Ill.Dec. 850, 660 N.E.2d 107 (1995); Northern Illinois Gas, 199 Ill.App.3d 109, 145 Ill.Dec. 374, 556 N.E.2d 1276. A postjudgment motion ......