Kumaran v. Brotman

• Citation: 617 N.E.2d 191,247 Ill.App.3d 216,186 Ill.Dec. 952
• Decision Date: 10 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. 1-91-1885,1-91-1885
• Parties: , 186 Ill.Dec. 952, 84 Ed. Law Rep. 781, 21 Media L. Rep. 1833 Sampath KUMARAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara BROTMAN, Andrew Kochanowski, James J. Roche and The Chicago Tribune Company, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 191

617 N.E.2d 191

247 Ill.App.3d 216, 186 Ill.Dec. 952,

84 Ed. Law Rep. 781,

21 Media L. Rep. 1833

Sampath KUMARAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara BROTMAN, Andrew Kochanowski, James J. Roche and The Chicago Tribune Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1-91-1885.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, First Division.

May 10, 1993.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1993.

As Modified June 28, 1993.

Sampath Kumaran, pro se.

Sidley & Austin, Chicago (Richard J. O'Brien, Paul E. Veith, of counsel), for defendants-appellees, Brotman and Chicago Tribune Co.

Alholm & Monahan, Chicago (Peter A. Monahan, Debra Criche Mell, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Kochanowski.

James J. Roche & Associates, Chicago (Maria G. Calderon, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Roche.

MODIFIED ON DENIAL OF REHEARING

Justice BUCKLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff Sampath Kumaran, a former substitute school teacher and security guard, filed a pro se defamation complaint on June 1, 1990, against two media defendants and two nonmedia defendants. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that he had been libeled by an article published in the Chicago Tribune on August 8, 1989. The media defendants are the Chicago Tribune Company (incorrectly sued as "Chicago Tribune Newspaper") and the reporter who wrote the newspaper article in controversy, Barbara Brotman. The nonmedia defendants are two attorneys, James J. Roche (incorrectly sued as "James B. Roche") and Andrew Kochanowski, who were quoted in the newspaper article. Defendants filed motions pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 110, par. 2-615 (now 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1992))) to dismiss the action. On March 28, 1991, the trial court sustained the motions to dismiss. Following the denial of his motion for reconsideration, plaintiff filed a timely pro se appeal.

Plaintiff's pro se briefs and supplementary materials contain oxymorons and other nonsensical remarks (such as "destructive construction," "intentionally negligent," "journalistic cannibalism," and "cannibalistic journalism") that are difficult to decipher. Plaintiff's materials also are replete with information which is extrinsic to the record on appeal and which consequently may not be considered on review. (Etten v. Lane (1985), 138 Ill.App.3d 439, 442, 92 Ill.Dec. 934, 936, 485 N.E.2d 1177, 1179.) Although plaintiff understandably may be confused about the law of defamation, which the Illinois Supreme Court has described as a "morass" (Mittelman v. Witous (1989), 135 Ill.2d 220, 232, 142 Ill.Dec. 232, 237, 552 N.E.2d 973, 978), we will identify and analyze the relevant issues in accordance with the applicable legal principles.

The newspaper article at issue was entitled, "Having his day in court is virtually an everyday event for West Sider," and it was featured in a section entitled, "About the town." The record does not reveal any further information regarding the context or placement of the article in the newspaper. Plaintiff's complaint specified 13 allegedly libelous remarks in the article. The first one was the title.

The article then began by stating, "It is shocking to discover how often Sampath Kumaran has been wronged." The article stated that Peoples Gas had shut off his heat, that Illinois Bell had " 'wantonly' " given him a defective telephone line, that the city had overbilled him for water, that Kuwait Airways had bumped him from a flight, that Air India had lost his luggage, that employers had fired him as a security guard because he is an East Indian, and that the State of Illinois had denied him unemployment benefits while he was between jobs as a substitute teacher. The article then stated, "Sampath Kumaran has suffered," and it cited damages allegedly caused by the airline bumping and the defective telephone line, including " 'mental torture' " and the loss of his job.

The article went on to state, "Sampath Kumaran has sued. Frequently." According to the article, plaintiff had filed "at least 24 lawsuits" since 1980, including a lawsuit initially seeking $1 million against Peoples Gas, and lawsuits against Illinois Bell, the city of Chicago, Kuwait Airways, and Air India, for the above claims. The article stated that some of the lawsuits had been dismissed, but that many had been settled, "which several lawyers believe is Kumaran's intention." (This is the second remark which plaintiff claimed was libelous.) The article then quoted defendants Roche and Kochanowski as follows:

" 'This guy's just working a scam,' said James J. Roche, who represented Andy Frain Security Co., which Kumaran claimed discriminated against him by firing him. [This is the third remark which plaintiff claimed was libelous.]

'Basically, he's figured out the system, that it's cheaper to settle than to try a case,' said Andrew Kochanowski, the attorney who represented Kuwait Airways. [This is the fourth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.]

The airline, which said Kumaran was not on the flight he desired because he left the departure gate and did not return until after [the] plane left, paid Kumaran $2,000 to settle his claim.

'He told the court he works 50 days a year as a substitute schoolteacher,' Kochanowski said. 'The rest of the time he spends in court. This is his full-time profession.' " (This is the fifth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.)

The article went on to describe the exterior of plaintiff's residence and the signs in his windows asking passersby not to smoke, litter, play radios, or make noise. The article then stated:

"According to documents he has filed, Kumaran has recently worked as a substitute teacher in Berwyn's Morton High School District 201. The district reports that Kumaran's status is, predictably, in litigation. [This is the sixth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.]

Kumaran declined to be interviewed. He did, however, say of the notion that he files unwarranted suits for settlement money, 'That is the wrong impression.'

He also threatened to sue."

The article went on to quote Kochanowski, who admired plaintiff for being organized and for studying at the law library; and William Lazarus, who represented Air India and who described plaintiff as "fairly likeable," "very persistent," and "very flowery" in his correspondence. Lazarus was quoted as stating, " 'In his correspondence he was saying, "I don't want to sue Mother India. I would be happy to settle for a mere $20,000." ' "

The article then quoted Roche as stating that plaintiff knew more about civil rights law than Roche did. The article reported that Roche said Andy Frain had fired plaintiff because plaintiff had "walked off a job, claiming that the temperature inside McCormick Place was too cold." (This is the seventh remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.) The article stated that Roche knew plaintiff previously "had filed numerous similar suits," but that plaintiff was " 'taunting' " Roche because plaintiff knew evidence of those suits would be inadmissible in a jury trial. (The "taunting" remark is the eighth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.) According to the article, Roche recalled that during the lawsuit, plaintiff had "accused two federal court judges of racism, including Senior U.S. District Court Judge James Parsons, the first black federal judge appointed since Reconstruction." (This is the ninth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.) The article then quoted Roche as follows:

" 'Federal judges bend over backwards for people with civil rights cases,' Roche said. Then you see an eight-ball like this guy take advantage of it, and it really irritates you.' " (This is the tenth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.)

The article then reported that judges who "accepted his [plaintiff's] claim that he has no money and deserves representation" had appointed "some of the finest law firms in Chicago" to represent plaintiff for free, including William Snapp of Jenner and Block, and Richard Phelan, who "turned the cases over to more junior attorneys in their firms * * *." (This is the eleventh remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.) The article then stated:

"Snapp does not recall the Kumaran case. But he said lawyers, especially those appointed to represent the poor, should not assume a case is frivolous or has no factual basis even if the plaintiff is a frequent suit filer.

'Even paranoids have enemies,' he said. 'It's not our job to be judge.' " (This is the twelfth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.)

The article reported that Federal judges had refused to appoint free attorneys for plaintiff on at least five occasions. The article reported further that two attorneys who had been appointed to represent plaintiff in a case against the City Colleges of Chicago "withdrew rather than sign Kumaran's complaint. In it, Kumaran listed 144 teaching jobs he said he had applied for, and said it was due to discrimination that he had not gotten a single one."

The article stated that plaintiff had "left an indelible impression on many * * *." The article concluded as follows:

"Kochanowski will not soon forget the way he picked up his settlement check from the lawyer's office. [This is the thirteenth remark that plaintiff claimed was libelous.]

'He showed up with his wife dressed as a security guard,' he said. 'He said, "I have been advised that I will be attacked." '

'At settlement time, he brought his son in,' said Mary Patricia Benz of Phelan Pope & John, one of Kumaran's court-appointed attorneys. 'He told me his son's name was America the Illustrious. I'll never forget it.' "

In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was an American citizen and a person "of good name, fame, with international and national reputation as a professional with very high qualifications, experiences and merit * * *." He alleged that defendants connived in the composition of the article, which contained "many lies" and was ...