Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
Decision Date | 18 September 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 5-08-0205.,5-08-0205. |
Citation | 385 Ill.App.3d 287,895 N.E.2d 97 |
Parties | Timothy A. ROGERS and Alan Westfall, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Robert H. Shultz, Jr., Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Edwardsville, Karen L. Kendall, Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Peoria, David B. Johnson, Alexa C. Warner, Sidley Austin, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Appellant.
John W. Hoffman, Korein Tillery, LLC, St. Louis, MO, Herman Watson, Jr., Rebekah Keith McKinney, Eric J. Artrip, Watson, Jimmerson, Martin, McKinney, Graffeo & Helms, P.C., Huntsville, AL, J. Dudley Butler, J. Dudley Butler, P.A., Benton, MS, Joe E. Whatley, Jr., Whatley, Drake & Kallas, L.L.C., Birmingham, AL, Ron Parry, Parry, Deering, Futscher & Sparks, P.S.C., Covington, KY, for Appellees.
The defendant, Tyson Foods, Inc., appeals from the order of the circuit court of Madison County that denied its motion for a summary judgment. The defendant requested a summary judgment in its favor on the basis that federal law preempts the claims of the plaintiffs, Timothy A. Rogers and Alan Westfall, which they have brought on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the defendant's appeal for a lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The defendant's jurisdictional statement invokes the jurisdiction of this court to review interlocutory orders granting, modifying, refusing, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve or modify an injunction. See 188 Ill.2d R. 307(a)(1). The defendant cites Kellerman v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 112 Ill.2d 428, 438, 98 Ill.Dec. 24, 493 N.E.2d 1045 (1986), May Department Stores Co. v. Teamsters Union Local No. 743, 64 Ill.2d 153, 158, 355 N.E.2d 7 (1976), and Crain v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 317 Ill.App.3d 486, 492, 250 Ill.Dec. 876, 739 N.E.2d 639 (2000), for the proposition that the denial of a motion asserting federal preemption as a complete defense to the plaintiffs' claims is subject to interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a) (188 Ill.2d R. 307(a)) because the "preemption argument brings into issue the authority of the trial court to enter the order appealed from." However, these cases dealt with whether the preemption issue was within the scope of the review of a properly appealable order granting or denying a motion to stay proceedings or a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Kellerman, 112 Ill.2d at 434, 98 Ill.Dec. 24, 493 N.E.2d 1045 (); May Department Stores Co., 64 Ill.2d at 158, 355 N.E.2d 7 (); Crain, 317 Ill.App.3d at 491, 250 Ill.Dec. 876, 739 N.E.2d 639 (). A stay is considered injunctive in nature, and thus an order granting or denying a stay fits squarely within Rule 307(a). See Lundy v. Farmers Group, Inc., 322 Ill.App.3d 214, 216, 255 Ill.Dec. 733, 750 N.E.2d 314 (2001).
The question in all the cases cited by the defendant was whether or not the preemption issue was sufficiently related to the authority of the circuit court to enter the properly appealable order granting or denying the injunction or stay in order to place the preemption issue within the scope of review. The cited cases do not stand for the proposition that the preemption issue is always appealable as an interlocutory appeal as of right under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a). To hold otherwise would be to ignore the long-standing principle...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cholipski v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.
...pursuant to Rule 307 to review the trial court's grant of a stay of court proceedings) (quoting Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 385 Ill.App.3d 287, 288, 324 Ill.Dec. 97, 895 N.E.2d 97 (2008) ). See also Hastings Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ultimate Backyard, LLC, 2012 IL App (1st) 101751, ¶ 28, 35......
-
W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. TRRS Corp.
...Racing Board , 179 Ill. 2d 488, 496-97, 228 Ill.Dec. 692, 689 N.E.2d 1113 (1997) ; see also Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , 385 Ill. App. 3d 287, 288, 324 Ill.Dec. 97, 895 N.E.2d 97 (2008) ("A stay is considered injunctive in nature, and thus an order granting or denying a stay fits squarely ......
-
Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ultimate Backyard, LLC
...in nature, and thus an order granting or denying a stay fits squarely within Rule 307(a)." Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 385 Ill.App.3d 287, 288, 324 Ill.Dec. 97, 895 N.E.2d 97 (2008). "The denial of a stay by a trial court is treated as a denial of a request for a preliminary injunction, wh......
-
Aventine Renewable Energy Inc. v. Jp Morgan Sec. Inc.
...in nature, and thus an order granting or denying a stay fits squarely within Rule 307(a).” Rogers v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 385 Ill.App.3d 287, 288, 324 Ill.Dec. 97, 895 N.E.2d 97, 98 (2008); see also Marsh v. Illinois Racing Board, 179 Ill.2d 488, 228 Ill.Dec. 692, 689 N.E.2d 1113 (1997).1 [34......