Krueger v. Lewis

Decision Date24 July 2003
Docket NumberNo. 1-02-1212.,1-02-1212.
PartiesPatricia KRUEGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Ann LEWIS, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Robert K. Bush, David L. Ader, Lucy B. Bednarek, Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Rolek, P.C., Chicago, for Appellant.

Robert V. Gildo, Joseph M. Williams, Wheaton, for Appellee.

Presiding Justice THEIS delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Patricia Krueger, appeals from an order of the circuit court granting defendant's, Mary Ann Lewis's, motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint under section 2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2000)). Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint in that it adequately stated a cause of action for slander per se and the defendant's communications were not absolutely privileged. For the following reasons, we reverse.

The complaint alleges the following facts. Plaintiff held the position of Village trustee of the Village of Lyons since April 20, 1999. On Tuesday, June 19, 2001, plaintiff served at a televised meeting of the Village of Lyons board of trustees which contained an "audience crowded with Lyons citizens and voters." Plaintiff alleges that defendant, "maliciously intending to injure plaintiff in her good name and reputation," charged that plaintiff "in her capacity as a Village Trustee, had accepted a bribe to establish a [tax increment financing] district in the Village of Lyons, and that [p]laintiff was pocketing money from developers in exchange for [p]laintiffs cooperation." Plaintiff requested that defendant repeat her statement and defendant did so. Defendant made the statement "upon information and belief, in full knowledge that [it was] untrue or in reckless disregard of [its] truth or falsity, and for the purpose of injuring plaintiff in her good name and business." Plaintiff further alleges that "[a]t the time of the publication of her statement, the defendant made no reasonable effort to inquire as to the truthfulness of her claim that [p]laintiff accepted bribes." Plaintiff claims these statements have caused injury to her reputation and seeks $50,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.

Defendant filed a section 2-615 motion to dismiss (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2000)), arguing, inter alia, that her statements were absolutely privileged. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding the statements were absolutely privileged because they were made at a legislative proceeding. Plaintiff appeals.

We first address defendant's argument that the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss under section 2-615 because plaintiff has not pleaded the actual words used by defendant as indicated by the lack of quotation marks around the slanderous statements.

When conducting our de novo review of a motion to dismiss under section 2-615, we accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the nonmoving party. Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hill Mechanical Group, 323 Ill. App.3d 1028, 1032, 257 Ill.Dec. 175, 753 N.E.2d 370, 374 (2001). A complaint is susceptible to dismissal under section 2-615 for failure to state a cause of action only when it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proved under the pleadings that would entitle plaintiff to relief. Casualty Insurance Co., 323 Ill.App.3d at 1033, 257 Ill.Dec. 175, 753 N.E.2d at 374. A pleader is not required to set out his evidence. Casualty Insurance Co., 323 Ill. App.3d at 1034, 257 Ill.Dec. 175, 753 N.E.2d at 374. Only the ultimate facts to be proved need be alleged, not the evidentiary facts tending to prove such ultimate facts. Casualty Insurance Co., 323 Ill. App.3d at 1034, 257 Ill.Dec. 175, 753 N.E.2d at 374.

A complaint for defamation must set forth the words alleged to be defamatory "clearly and with particularity." Lykowski v. Bergman, 299 Ill.App.3d 157, 163, 233 Ill.Dec. 356, 700 N.E.2d 1064, 1069 (1998). This rule allows the defendants to properly formulate their answer and affirmative defenses (Lykowski 299 Ill.App.3d at 163,233 Ill.Dec. 356,700 N.E.2d at 1069), and to provide the court with the ability to meaningfully review the statements (Mittelman v. Witous, 135 Ill.2d 220, 230, 142 Ill.Dec. 232, 552 N.E.2d 973, 978 (1989) (abrogated on other grounds by Kuwik v. Starmark Star Marketing & Administration, Inc., 156 Ill.2d 16, 188 Ill.Dec. 765, 619 N.E.2d 129 (1993))). Although the alleged defamatory words are invariably quoted verbatim in the reported cases (3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice § 24.7, at 379 (1989)), no Illinois case has ever held that the pleader must place the slanderous remarks within quotation marks. Rather, courts measure the specificity of an allegation by determining whether it states a conclusion or a fact. See, e.g., Mittelman, 135 Ill.2d at 230,142 Ill.Dec. 232,552 N.E.2d at 978; Lykowski, 299 Ill.App.3d at 163,233 Ill.Dec. 356,700 N.E.2d at 1069. This is particularly true where the reproduction of those statements may be more difficult, as in slander cases. Mittelman, 135 Ill.2d at 230,142 Ill.Dec. 232,552 N.E.2d at 978.

Here, plaintiff has adequately alleged ultimate facts supporting a cause of action for slander per se. Statements that accuse a public official of accepting a bribe are sufficient, and it is not necessary that the statement charge the criminal offense of bribery or official misconduct with the precision of an indictment. Catalano v. Pechous, 83 Ill.2d 146, 157, 50 Ill.Dec. 242, 419 N.E.2d 350, 355-56 (1980) (holding that defendant's statement that "two hundred forty pieces of silver changed hands—thirty for each alderman" constituted defamation). Plaintiff alleges that on June 19, 2001, she was serving as a trustee in a crowded, televised board meeting. Defendant stated that plaintiff had taken a bribe from developers in return for establishing a tax increment financing district and that plaintiff was pocketing money from developers in exchange for plaintiffs cooperation. We can conduct a meaningful review, as the complaint adequately alleges words that directly impute the commission of the criminal offense of bribery and therefore constitute slander per se. Furthermore, these statements are specific enough that defendant has asserted the affirmative defense of absolute privilege.

We thus reject defendant's argument that the lack of quotation marks around the alleged defamatory comments demonstrates plaintiff has not pleaded the actual words. This argument violates the principle that we must take all well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the favor of plaintiff. There is nothing to indicate in the complaint, which we take as true, that these were not the specific words actually used. Mittelman, 135 Ill.2d at 230, 142 Ill.Dec. 232, 552 N.E.2d at 978. Therefore, defendant has not demonstrated that it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proved under the pleadings that would entitle plaintiff to relief. Casualty Insurance Co., 323 Ill. App.3d at 1032-33, 257 Ill.Dec. 175, 753 N.E.2d at 374.

Defendant further argues that a videotape of the allegations exists, and therefore the statements could have easily been reproduced by the plaintiff. She also indicates that the videotape would demonstrate that plaintiff did not properly allege the statements made. Defendant's argument is misplaced because of her choice to pursue dismissal of the complaint under section 2-615 (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2000)), where we look at only the four corners of the complaint, rather than under section 2-619 (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2000)), where evidentiary material may be submitted. The complaint does not state the comments were videotaped, nor does it relate any other form of the statement. Defendant provides no authority to allow judicial notice that a televised Village of Lyons board meeting was videotaped. More importantly, defendant has not furnished an affidavit or the videotape accompanying a section 2-619 motion, allowing us to review her assertions. See, e.g., Berkos v. National Broadcasting Co., 161 Ill.App.3d 476, 113 Ill.Dec. 683, 515 N.E.2d 668 (1987) (defendants presented to court a videotape and transcript of pertinent portion of television broadcast).

We turn now to defendant's argument that the statement was "absolutely privileged" because it was made at a legislative proceeding and therefore protected by the first amendment. We first note that defendant misconstrues the nature of the privilege that she asserts. The pleading implications of the "constitutional privilege" derived from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254,84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), and its progeny are separate and distinct from the "absolute privilege" as found in Joseph v. Collis, 272 Ill.App.3d 200, 208 Ill.Dec. 604, 649 N.E.2d 964 (1995), which protects a private citizen's statements made at legislative proceedings.

Under the constitutional privilege, a public official plaintiff must plead and prove actual malice, meaning that the utterance was false and that it was made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of whether it was false or true. New York Times Co., 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686. The public official-public figure rule is often, misleadingly perhaps, referred to as a privilege, but the impact of the rule has been analyzed in terms of the intent element of the tort. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580A, comment e, at 19 (1977); 3 R. Michael, Illinois Practice § 24.7, at 380 (1989). On appeal, defendant does not challenge plaintiff's allegations that the statement was false and that it was made with the knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of whether it was false or true. Rather, defendant asserts that the alleged statements were absolutely privileged.

Even were we to address the constitutional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Tirio v. Dalton
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 30, 2019
    ...have been held by our supreme court to be sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss [citations.]" Krueger v. Lewis , 342 Ill. App. 3d 467, 472-73, 276 Ill.Dec. 720, 794 N.E.2d 970 (2003) (actual malice was sufficiently alleged where the complaint stated that the statements were made by th......
  • VILLAGE OF SO. ELGIN v. WASTE MGT. OF ILL.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 28, 2004
    ...parties. In ruling on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, we must accept all well-pleaded facts as true. Krueger v. Lewis, 342 Ill.App.3d 467, 470, 276 Ill.Dec. 720, 794 N.E.2d 970 (2003). Similarly, a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 admits all well-pleaded facts and the reasonab......
  • Green v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 30, 2008
    ...stated that the defendant made the alleged defamatory statements "which he knew were false." See Krueger v. Lewis, 342 Ill.App.3d 467, 473, 276 Ill.Dec. 720, 794 N.E.2d 970 (2003) (actual malice was sufficiently alleged where the complaint stated that the statements were made by the defenda......
  • Thompson v. N.J.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 29, 2016
    ...to the motion to dismiss without the requisite affidavit, we decline to consider it in this appeal. See Krueger v. Lewis, 342 Ill.App.3d 467, 472, 276 Ill.Dec. 720, 794 N.E.2d 970 (2003). Accordingly, we turn to consider whether plaintiff's complaint was sufficiently plead in order to survi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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