Paglis v. Black
| Decision Date | 03 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-88-0430,3-88-0430 |
| Citation | 178 Ill.App.3d 1062,128 Ill.Dec. 186,534 N.E.2d 206 |
| Parties | , 128 Ill.Dec. 186 James R. PAGLIS, James P. Paglis, and Paglis Buick Cadillac, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. August BLACK, George Black, Frank Black, Donald Black, and Black & Black, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
George M. Stuhr, Rudman & Subuco, Joliet, for James R. Paglis, James P. Paglis, Paglis Buick Cadillac, Inc.
James R. Fabrizio, Garrison, Fabrizio & Hanson, Ltd., Joliet, for August Black, George Black, Frank Black, Donald Black, Black & Black.
The trial court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants, August Black, George Black, Frank Black, Donald Black, and Black & Black, on the ground that the plaintiffs were not diligent in obtaining service of process on the defendants. The plaintiffs, James R. Paglis, James P. Paglis, and Paglis Buick Cadillac, Inc., appeal. We affirm.
On September 30, 1987, the plaintiffs sued the defendants on two counts of legal malpractice. On April 19, 1988, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice on the ground that the plaintiffs were not diligent in obtaining service of process. In their motion, the defendants alleged the following facts: (1) that the two counts of the cause of action occurred on October 1 and October 26, 1982; (2) that the cause of action had a five-year statute of limitations period; (3) that the complaint was filed shortly before the running of the statute of limitations; (4) that the plaintiffs did not obtain issuance of the summonses until March 15, 1988; (5) that the plaintiffs knew that the defendants had a law office in the Grundy County National Bank building in Morris, Illinois; and (6) that after the plaintiffs obtained issuance of the summonses, the defendants were served process within nine days.
In their answer to the motion, the plaintiffs conceded all of the foregoing facts. At the hearing on the motion, the plaintiffs offered no explanation for the delay in obtaining service of process, but argued that under the circumstances they were reasonably diligent in obtaining service. The trial court granted the defendants' motion.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs reiterate their argument made at trial that under the circumstances they were reasonably diligent in obtaining service of process. They also emphasize that the five and one-half month period of delay between the filing of the complaint and the issuance of the summonses was shorter than the periods of delay in other cases where the court found the plaintiff to be reasonably diligent. See, e.g., Dupon v. Kaplan (1987), 163 Ill.App.3d 451, 114 Ill.Dec. 572, 516 N.E.2d 727. Supreme Court Rule 103(b) (107 Ill.2d R. 103(b)) provides that an action shall be dismissed with prejudice if a plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain service of process occurs after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The purposes of the rule are to protect defendants from unnecessary delays in the service of process, to prevent the circumventing of the statute of limitations, and to expedite the handling of lawsuits. (Viking Dodge Inc. v. Hofmann (1987), 161 Ill.App.3d 186, 112 Ill.Dec. 782, 514 N.E.2d 248.) The factors to be considered in determining whether a plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence are: (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinkle v. Henderson
...refiled two months later, and served defendants within three and a half months of refiling); Paglis v. Black, 178 Ill. App.3d 1062, 128 Ill.Dec. 186, 187, 188, 534 N.E.2d 206, 207-08 (3d Dist.) (five and a half month delay), appeal denied, 126 Ill.2d 561, 133 Ill.Dec. 670, 541 N.E.2d 1108 (......
-
Kreykes Elec., Inc. v. Malk and Harris
...by plaintiff, and plaintiff waited to effectuate service nearly six months after refiling complaint); Paglis v. Black, 178 Ill.App.3d 1062, 128 Ill.Dec. 186, 534 N.E.2d 206 (1989) (delay of more than five months in obtaining service upon defendants in malpractice action, despite plaintiffs'......
-
Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Myriad France SAS
...Jordan, 269 Ill.App.3d 301, 308, 206 Ill.Dec. 739, 645 N.E.2d 991, 996 (1995) (delay of six months); Paglis v. Black, 178 Ill.App.3d 1062, 1064, 128 Ill.Dec. 186, 534 N.E.2d 206, 208 (1989) (delay of five-and-one-half months without explanation); Segal v. Sacco, 175 Ill.App.3d 504, 507, 124......
-
Zincoris v. Hobart Bros. Co. (of Ohio)
...service. (Jones v. Shallow (1990), 201 Ill.App.3d 594, 596, 147 Ill.Dec. 128, 559 N.E.2d 128; Paglis v. Black (1989), 178 Ill.App.3d 1062, 1064, 128 Ill.Dec. 186, 534 N.E.2d 206; Phifer v. Hayes (1974), 20 Ill.App.3d 635, 639, 314 N.E.2d 473.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show that he ......