Ritchie Multi-Strategies Global, LLC v. Huizenga Managers Fund LLC
| Decision Date | 11 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-18-2664,1-18-2664 |
| Citation | 133 N.E.3d 1165,433 Ill.Dec. 885,2019 IL App (1st) 182664 |
| Parties | RITCHIE MULTI-STRATEGIES GLOBAL, LLC, BY AND THROUGH Its Managing Member, RITCHIE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUIZENGA MANAGERS FUND LLC ; Huizenga Capital Management, LLC ; Williams Montgomery & John, Ltd.; Christopher Barber ; Gary Garner; and Jonathan D. Miller, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Dan K. Webb, Sean G. Wieber, and Michael S. Bergerson Jr., of Winston & Strawn LLP, of Chicago, for appellant.
Christopher C. Kendall and J’Aimee C. Crockett, of Law Office of Christopher C. Kendall, P.C., and Christopher J. Barber, Gary W. Garner, and Jonathan D. Miller, of Williams Montgomery & John, Ltd., both of Chicago, for appellees.
¶ 1 On December 21, 2018, the plaintiff in this case, Ritchie Multi-Strategies Global, LLC, filed a notice that it claimed was an interlocutory appeal as of right under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(d) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017). The appeal asked this court to overturn an order of the circuit court, entered on December 19, 2018, that "dissolved" a temporary restraining order that had been entered on March 13, 2018. However, at the time of that circuit court order, the ex parte temporary restraining order had expired long ago, by virtue of its own 10-day life span.
¶ 2 On December 28, 2018, we entered an order, on our own motion, dismissing this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As we indicated that we would in that order, we are now issuing an opinion to explain why the interlocutory jurisdiction of Rule 307(a) and the expedited procedures provided by Rule 307(d) do not apply where, as here, there was no injunctive order in place that was being "dissolved" by the trial court.
¶ 4 The background of this litigation is long and tortured, and we will recite only those few facts that are relevant to this appeal. The primary parties are plaintiff Ritchie Multi-Strategies Global, LLC (Ritchie), an investment fund managed by Ritchie Capital Management, LLC (RCM), and defendant Huizenga Capital Management, LLC (Huizenga Capital), which manages defendant Huizenga Managers Fund, LLC (Huizenga Fund), a pooled investment fund (collectively, Huizenga). Additional defendants are Christopher Barber, Gary Garner, and Jonathan D. Miller, lawyers who work at the defendant law firm of Williams Montgomery & John Ltd. (collectively, the WMJ defendants).
¶ 5 On March 8, 2018, Ritchie filed a complaint for injunctive relief against Huizenga and the WMJ defendants in St. Clair County, Illinois. In its complaint, Ritchie alleged that Huizenga Capital made investments in Ritchie on behalf of Huizenga Fund, thereby becoming a member of Ritchie, subject to the terms of the Ritchie operating agreement, and that the WMJ defendants "have provided legal representation on behalf of [Huizenga] in litigation against certain RCM Parties concerning Huizenga Capital's investment in [Ritchie]." Ritchie further alleged in its complaint (1) that Huizenga had breached certain terms of the operating agreement, (2) that, as a result, Ritchie "has in the past, is in the present, and will in the future suffer immediate and irreparable harm to their respective business reputation for financial stability, investment acumen, and creditworthiness," and (3) that Ritchie had no adequate remedy at law. Ritchie also filed a motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO).
¶ 6 On March 13, 2018, Judge Kievlan of the circuit court of St. Clair County granted the ex parte TRO, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by Ritchie and enjoining Huizenga from either (1) disparaging Ritchie, or (2) disclosing confidential documents and information in pleadings, motions, or oral argument in other cases that were pending between these same parties. By statute, this ex parte TRO could not "exceed 10 days." 735 ILCS 5/11-101 (West 2016). Judge Kievlan set a preliminary injunction fhearing for March 23.
¶ 7 On March 19, 2018, Huizenga filed a motion to dissolve the TRO and for damages. Huizenga also filed a motion to transfer the case from St. Clair County to Cook County, arguing that St. Clair County was not a proper venue. After a hearing, on March 21, 2018, Judge Julie Katz of St. Clair County granted the motion to transfer the case to Cook County "immediately" and cancelled the hearing set for March 23. Judge Katz's order makes no mention of the motion to dissolve the TRO and for damages. The case was transferred to Cook County and assigned to Judge Sanjay Tailor, and defendants renewed their motion to dissolve the ex parte TRO.
¶ 8 On December 19, 2018, Judge Tailor, after an extensive hearing, entered an order that imposed sanctions against Ritchie and granted Huizenga's motion to dissolve the TRO. Judge Tailor recognized that the TRO was no longer in place but accepted Huizenga's argument that it needed a dissolution order as a predicate to obtaining damages. Judge Tailor ruled that there was "no basis in fact or law for obtaining [the] TRO ex parte ."
¶ 9 Two days later, on December 21, 2018, Ritchie filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from the order dissolving the ex parte TRO, pursuant to Rule 307(d), asking us to reverse that order. As noted above, we issued an order on December 28, 2018, dismissing this appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, which we now explain.
¶ 11 Although no party objected to our jurisdiction, we have an independent duty to ensure that we do have jurisdiction and to dismiss an appeal if it is lacking. LB Steel, LLC v. Carlo Steel Corp. , 2018 IL App (1st) 153501, ¶ 23, 428 Ill.Dec. 265, 122 N.E.3d 274 ). We have jurisdiction over final judgments and certain interlocutory orders as prescribed by our Supreme Court Rules. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 304 (eff. Mar. 8, 2016); R. 306 (eff. Nov. 1, 2017); R. 307 (eff. Nov. 1, 2017); R. 308 (eff. July 1, 2017).
¶ 12 With respect to injunctions, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a)(1) (eff. Nov. 1, 2017) allows a party to appeal as of right from an interlocutory order of the circuit court "granting, modifying, refusing, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction." And when a party is seeking review of the "granting or denial of a temporary restraining order or an order modifying, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve or modify a temporary restraining order," the rules require notice of appeal to be filed within two days of that order, followed by an extraordinarily expedited briefing schedule. Id. § 307(d). This expedited briefing schedule allows the parties only two days to file legal memoranda in lieu of briefs and culminates with the appellate court being required to decide the appeal within five business days of the end of briefing. Id.
¶ 13 Obviously, when an injunctive order that has preserved that status quo has been put in place or has been dissolved, time is often of the essence. However, as our supreme court has repeatedly made clear: " " Marsh v. Illinois Racing Board , 179 Ill. 2d 488, 491, 228 Ill.Dec. 692, 689 N.E.2d 1113 (1997) (quoting In re A Minor , 127 Ill. 2d 247, 260, 130 Ill.Dec. 225, 537 N.E.2d 292 (1989) ). In this case, although Judge Tailor issued an order "dissolving" the TRO, as the parties recognized when they appeared before Judge Tailor, the TRO had long ago expired pursuant to statute.
¶ 14 Section 11-110 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/11-110 (West 2016) ), provides for damages "where a temporary restraining order * * * is dissolved by the circuit court or...
To continue reading
Request your trial