Lewis v. Heartland Food Corp.

• Citation: 17 N.E.3d 219
• Decision Date: 19 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. 1–12–3303.,1–12–3303.
• Parties: Martin Edward LEWIS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. HEARTLAND FOOD CORPORATION, Burger King Corporation, and Burger King No. 1250, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

17 N.E.3d 219

Martin Edward LEWIS, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
HEARTLAND FOOD CORPORATION, Burger King Corporation, and Burger King No. 1250, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 1–12–3303.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.

Aug. 19, 2014.

17 N.E.3d 220

Martin Edward Lewis, of Chicago, appellant pro se.

Mulherin, Rehfeldt & Varchetto, P.C., of Wheaton (Stephen A. Rehfeldt, of counsel), and Swanson, Martin & Bell LLP, of Chicago (Richard J. Keating, Jr., of counsel), for appellees.

OPINION

Justice LIU delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 Plaintiff Martin Edward Lewis appeals pro se from orders of the circuit court dismissing his case pursuant to section 2–615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2–615 (West 2012) ). On appeal, plaintiff asks this court, inter alia, “to review this instant case, reverse the lower court and remand for further proceedings in the lower court.” For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 2 In 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint against Heartland Food Corporation (Heartland), Burger King Corporation (BKC), and Burger King No. 1250, alleging that his iPhone was stolen by “four fellow customers” while he was at a Burger King restaurant in Chicago. Plaintiff asserted that by not providing “manned security” in the restaurant, defendants had negligently, as well as willfully and wantonly, breached their duties “to exercise ordinary care and caution and provide proper security in all of hours operation and the burden of management not to allow the criminal element to enter the premises so as to avoid causing injury and loss [of] personal property to Plaintiff” and “to provide notices of security and surveillance camera positions and monitors.” Plaintiff sought $1,000 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

¶ 3 BKC filed a motion to strike plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages, which was granted by the trial court. The trial court also entered an order dismissing “Burger King # 1250” as a defendant. BKC and Heartland each filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2–615 of the Code. After the motions were fully briefed and separate hearings were held, the trial court granted both motions to dismiss.

¶ 4 Plaintiff appeals from the trial court's orders dismissing his case against BKC and Heartland. For the most part, his brief on appeal simply repeats the allegations in his complaint. He also complains that the trial court only allowed him a “one-minute” hearing and asks this court “to review this instant case, reverse the lower court and remand for further proceedings in the lower court.” Plaintiff cites and discusses numerous cases that address negligence principles, but does not explain how he believes the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint.

¶ 5 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Feb. 6, 2013) provides that an appellant's brief must contain contentions and the reasons therefor, with citation to the authorities upon which the appellant relies. As a reviewing court, we are entitled to have the issues clearly defined, pertinent authority cited, and a cohesive legal argument presented. Walters v. Rodriguez, 2011 IL App (1st) 103488, ¶ 5, 356 Ill.Dec. 103, 960 N.E.2d 1226. “The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the

17 N.E.3d 221

burden of argument and research.” Thrall Car Manufacturing Co. v. Lindquist, 145 Ill.App.3d 712, 719, 99 Ill.Dec. 397, 495 N.E.2d 1132 (1986). Arguments that are not supported by citations to authority fail to meet the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) and are procedurally defaulted. Vilardo v. Barrington Community School District 220, 406 Ill.App.3d 713, 720, 346 Ill.Dec. 699, 941 N.E.2d 257 (2010). Pro se litigants are not excused from following rules that dictate the form and content of appellate briefs. In re Marriage of Barile, 385 Ill.App.3d 752, 757, 324 Ill.Dec. 895, 896 N.E.2d 1114 (2008).

¶ 6 In this case, plaintiff has failed to provide a cohesive legal argument or a reasoned basis for his contentions. Accordingly, his contentions are forfeited. Forfeiture aside, and to the extent that plaintiff has made a legal argument, his appeal fails on the merits.

...