Hutsonville Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Ill. High Sch. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 05 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 5-21-0308 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (5th) 210308,195 N.E.3d 798,457 Ill.Dec. 662 |
| Parties | HUTSONVILLE COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1; I.S., a Minor, by Her Parent and Next Friend, Cory Sheets; and Cory Sheets, Petitioners-Appellants, v. ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION and Craig Anderson, as Executive Director of the Illinois High School Association, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jerrold Harris Stocks, of Featherstun, Gaumer, Stocks, Flynn & Eck, LLP, and Shane M. Mendenhall, of Bolen, Robinson & Ellis, LLP, both of Decatur, for appellants.
David J. Bressler, of Clingen, Callow & McLean, LLC, of Lisle, for appellees.
¶ 1 Petitioners, Hutsonville Community Unit School District No. 1 (Hutsonville), I.S., a student athlete, and the athlete's parent, Cory Sheets, appeal the trial court's denial of their motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against respondents, the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) and its executive director, Craig Anderson. The petitioners’ motion requested the trial court enjoin the IHSA from enforcing its August 23, 2021, resolution that precluded IHSA member schools, on probation for noncompliance with the Governor's August 4, 2021, COVID-19 Executive Order No. 85 (Executive Order No. 2021-18, 45 Ill. Reg. 10,726 (Aug. 4, 2021)) mask mandate, from participating in the State Series. For the following reasons, we reverse.
¶ 3 On September 28, 2021, petitioners filed a verified two-count complaint against respondents, alleging a breach of contract based on the IHSA constitution and bylaws in the first count and requesting injunctive relief in the second count. Petitioners attached copies of the IHSA constitution and bylaws; the IHSA board of directors’ August 23, 2021, resolution; Executive Order 2021-18; August 20, 2021, Covid-19 Executive Order No. 86 (Exec. Order No. 2021-19, 45 Ill. Reg. 10,886 (Aug. 20, 2021)); the August 26, 2021, COVID-19 Executive Order No. 87 (Exec. Order No. 2021-20, 45 Ill. Reg. 11,429 (Aug. 26, 2021)); the September 3, 2021, COVID-19 Executive Order No. 88 (Exec. Order No. 2021-22, 45 Ill. Reg. 11,639 (Sept. 3, 2021)); the September 17, 2021, COVID-19 Executive Order No. 89 (Exec. Order No. 2021-23, 45 Ill. Reg. 12,217 (Sept. 17, 2021)); the September 17, 2021, COVID-19 Executive Order No. 90 (Exec. Order No. 2021-24, 45 Ill. Reg. 12,222 (Sept. 17, 2021)); the September 21, 2021, COVID-19 Executive Order No. 91 (Exec. Order No. 2021-25, 45 Ill. Reg. 12,929 (Sept. 21, 2021)); and the Illinois State Board of Education's (ISBE) August 11, 2021, correspondence from State Superintendent of Education Dr. Carmen Ayala advising each school district to comply with Executive Order No. 2021-18 and providing repercussions to the school districts that failed to comply with the mandate; and correspondence between IHSA's executive director and the superintendent of Hutsonville, Julie Kraemer. Petitioners simultaneously filed a motion for a TRO, which incorporated the verified complaint and was further supported by the affidavit of Kraemer along with a memorandum in support of the TRO. On September 29, 2021, petitioners filed a notice of hearing on the motion for TRO, set on October 5, 2021.
¶ 4 On October 5, 2021, respondents filed a verified response to petitioners’ motion for TRO supported by two of the documents previously attached to petitioners’ motion, Executive Order No. 2021-18 and the IHSA board of directors approved recommendation. Respondents also attached Sangamon County trial court's December 1, 2020, opinion and judgment order for In re Covid-19 Litigation , No. 20-MR-589 (Cir. Ct. Sangamon County Dec. 1, 2020), the underlying TRO filed in that case, the September 21, 2021, revised public health guidance for schools issued by the ISBE, and the August 10, 2021, ‘‘All Sports Policy.’’
¶ 5 On October 5, 2021, the case proceeded to hearing. Following argument, the trial court issued a docket entry denying the TRO. Petitioners timely appealed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(d) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017).
¶ 7 Typically, the grant or denial of a TRO is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. C.D. Peters Construction Co. v. Tri-City Regional Port District , 281 Ill. App. 3d 41, 47, 216 Ill.Dec. 876, 666 N.E.2d 44 (1996). "However, where the trial court does not make any factual findings and rules on a question of law, the appellate court's review is de novo. " Makindu v. Illinois High School Ass'n , 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 32, 396 Ill.Dec. 529, 40 N.E.3d 182 ; see also Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C. , 225 Ill. 2d 52, 63, 310 Ill.Dec. 274, 866 N.E.2d 85 (2006). Here, no factual findings were provided by the trial court. The docket entry stated, Further, the parties agree that petitioners’ motion alleged a breach of contract. The construction, interpretation, or legal effect of a contract are questions of law reviewed de novo. Freeburg Community Consolidated School District No. 70 v. Country Mutual Insurance Co. , 2021 IL App (5th) 190098, ¶ 79, 451 Ill.Dec. 563, 183 N.E.3d 1020. As such, our review is de novo.
¶ 8 To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must "demonstrate (1) a clearly ascertained right in need of protection, (2) irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction, (3) no adequate remedy at law, and (4) a likelihood of success on the merits of the case." Mohanty , 225 Ill. 2d at 62, 310 Ill.Dec. 274, 866 N.E.2d 85. As such, we address whether petitioners established the necessary elements for the issuance of the TRO.
¶ 9 Petitioners provided undisputed facts raising a prima facie case with respect to the second and third elements. They alleged that preclusion from the State Series removed any possibility for Hutsonville or its students to compete for that year, and because I.S. is a senior, she would never again be able to participate in the State Series. Petitioners also alleged they had no adequate remedy at law because failure to compete for a year was the type of injury that could not be corrected by monetary judgment. See Makindu , 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 44, 396 Ill.Dec. 529, 40 N.E.3d 182. Respondents fail—in the trial court or on appeal—to dispute these allegations or argue such allegations fail to establish the second and third elements. As such, we find the petitioners set forth a prima facie case of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and that they had no adequate remedy at law.
¶ 10 We now turn to whether petitioners had a right to compete in the State Series that needed protection and the likelihood of the success on the merits of the case. We consider these elements together because "once the plaintiff established a fair question that his rights had been violated, he also established a fair question that he would likely prevail on his claim." Id. ¶ 38.
¶ 11 On review, "we examine only whether the party seeking the injunction has demonstrated a prima facie case that there is a fair question concerning the existence of the claimed rights." People ex rel. Klaeren v. Village of Lisle , 202 Ill. 2d 164, 177, 269 Ill.Dec. 426, 781 N.E.2d 223 (2002). "All that is necessary is that the plaintiff raise a fair question as to the existence of a right needing protection, leading the court to believe that the plaintiff will be entitled to the prayed-for relief if the proof presented at trial should sustain its allegations." Tie Systems, Inc. v. Telcom Midwest, Inc. , 203 Ill. App. 3d 142, 150-51, 148 Ill.Dec. 483, 560 N.E.2d 1080 (1990). The petitioner "is not required to make out a case which would entitle him to relief on the merits; rather, he need only show that he raises a ‘fair question’ about the existence of his right and that the court should preserve the status quo until the case can be decided on the merits." Buzz Barton & Associates, Inc. v. Giannone , 108 Ill. 2d 373, 382, 91 Ill.Dec. 636, 483 N.E.2d 1271 (1985). The purpose of preliminary injunctive relief is not to determine controverted rights or decide the merits of the case, but to prevent a threatened wrong or continuing injury and preserve the status quo with the least injury to the parties concerned. Makindu , 2015 IL App (2d) 141201, ¶ 31, 396 Ill.Dec. 529, 40 N.E.3d 182. "A TRO should not be refused *** merely because the court may not be absolutely certain the plaintiff has the right he claims." Stocker Hinge Manufacturing Co. v. Darnel Industries, Inc. , 94 Ill. 2d 535, 541-42, 69 Ill.Dec. 71, 447 N.E.2d 288 (1983).
¶ 12 Petitioners’ motion asserted Hutsonville had a protectable right as a member of the IHSA based on the organization's constitution and bylaws that established eligibility to compete in the State Series. Petitioners further asserted that the IHSA's August 23, 2021, resolution breached the contract between IHSA and its members by affecting Hutsonville's eligibility to participate in the State Series and therefore affected its rights as a member of the IHSA. Petitioners further contend that I.S., as a student athlete at Hutsonville, is a third-party beneficiary of the contract.
¶ 13 Respondents did not dispute that Hutsonville is a public school and member school of the IHSA for the 2021-22 school year and instead argued that Hutsonville did not have a protectable interest due to the outcome of litigation in Pritzker, et al. v. Board of Education of Hutsonville CUSD No. 1 , as well as JL Properties Group B, LLC v. Pritzker , 2021 IL App (3d) 200305, 452 Ill.Dec. 375, 185 N.E.3d 780, and Fox Fire Tavern, LLC v. Pritzker , 2020 IL App (2d) 200623, 443 Ill.Dec. 538, 161 N.E.3d 1190. Respondents further argued that I.S., as a student athlete, did not have a protectable...
To continue reading
Request your trial