Sandholm v. Kuecker

Decision Date18 October 2010
Docket NumberNo. 2–09–1015.,2–09–1015.
PartiesSteve SANDHOLM, Plaintiff–Appellant and Cross–Appellee,v.Richard KUECKER, Ardis Kuecker, Glen Hughes, Al Knickrehm, Tim Oliver, Dan Burke, David Deets, Mary Mahan–Deatherage, NRG Media, LLC, Greg Deatherage, Robert Shomaker, and Neil Petersen, Defendants–Appellees and Cross–Appellants (Michael Venier, Defendant–Appellee).
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

405 Ill.App.3d 835
942 N.E.2d 544
347 Ill.Dec.
341
38 Media L. Rep. 2377

Steve SANDHOLM, Plaintiff–Appellant and Cross–Appellee,
v.
Richard KUECKER, Ardis Kuecker, Glen Hughes, Al Knickrehm, Tim Oliver, Dan Burke, David Deets, Mary Mahan–Deatherage, NRG Media, LLC, Greg Deatherage, Robert Shomaker, and Neil Petersen, Defendants–Appellees and Cross–Appellants (Michael Venier, Defendant–Appellee).

No. 2–09–1015.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Oct. 18, 2010.


[942 N.E.2d 550]

Stephen T. Fieweger, Katz, Huntoon & Fieweger, P.C., Moline, for Steve Sandholm.Richard E. Lieberman, Michael R. Lieber, Jacob P. Hildner, McGuireWoods LLP, Chicago, for Al Knickrehm, NRG Media, LLC.Linda A. Giesen, Dixon & Giesen Law Offices, Dixon, for Dan Burke, Greg Deatherage, David Deets, Glen Hughes, Mary Mahan–Deatherage, Tim Oliver, Neil Petersen, Robert Shomaker.Magen J. Mertes, Mertes, & Mertes, P.C., Sterling, for Ardis Kuecker, Richard Kuecker.Jeffrey J. Zucchi, Clark, Justen, Zucchi & Frost, Ltd., Rockford, for Michael Venier.Justice BOWMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

[347 Ill.Dec. 347 , 405 Ill.App.3d 838] Plaintiff, Steve Sandholm, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his complaint, which alleged various counts of defamation, false light, and tortious interference, against defendants, Richard Kuecker, Ardis Kuecker, Glen Hughes, Michael Venier, Al Knickrehm, Tim Oliver, Dan Burke, David Deets, Mary Mahan–Deatherage, NRG Media, LLC, Greg Deatherage, Robert Shomaker, and Neil Petersen. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's complaint upon finding that the Citizen Participation[405 Ill.App.3d 839] Act (Act) (735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (West 2008)) provided defendants immunity from the claims alleged by plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the Act is unconstitutional and, alternatively, does not apply to the facts alleged in his complaint. Except Venier, defendants cross-appeal the attorney fee award, arguing that the trial court improperly limited the fees they could recover to those connected to the motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment of the trial court on all points.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a case of first impression involving interpretation of the Act, Illinois's anti-SLAPP (“Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation”) statute. The term “SLAPP” was developed by University of Denver professors George Pring and Penelope Canan, and the “Public Participation” referred to involves concerned citizens acting primarily on matters relating to the public interest. See M. Sobczak, SLAPPed in Illinois: The Scope and Applicability of the Illinois Citizen Participation Act, 28 N. Ill. U.L.Rev. 559, 563 (Summer 2008). In a typical SLAPP case, citizens oppose a developer's plan and petition their local government to stop the developer in some way. The developer then sues the citizens for intentional interference with prospective business and eventually the lawsuit is thrown out, but the citizens are financially strained in the process of defending the suit.

While the Act's clear objective as an anti-SLAPP statute is to provide citizens with an immediate way to dispose of such lawsuits, the Act was written more broadly than such statutes in other states and more broadly than Pring and Canan had defined. SLAPP lawsuits were originally defined as involving a right to petition and a matter of public concern. M. Sobczak, SLAPPed in Illinois: The Scope and Applicability of the Illinois Citizen Participation Act, 28 N. Ill. U.L.Rev. 559, 573 (Summer 2008). The Act exceeds that definition by including the rights to speak, assemble, or otherwise participate in government, and it is not limited to matters of social or civic concern. The ramifications of the Act are presented before this court in the context of a defamation lawsuit. The facts below are derived from the record before us.

[942 N.E.2d 551 , 347 Ill.Dec. 348]

On April 25, 2008, plaintiff filed his initial complaint, which was later amended on May 9, 2008, June 27, 2008, and November 17, 2008. The third amended complaint alleged the following. Plaintiff was hired as a teacher and head basketball coach at Dixon High School for the 1999–2000 school year. For the 2003–04 school year, plaintiff was assigned the additional position of athletic director for Dixon High School. Plaintiff had always received positive performance evaluations during his time at Dixon High School. Beginning in February [405 Ill.App.3d 840] 2008, defendants started a campaign to have plaintiff removed as basketball coach and athletic director due to their disagreement with his coaching style. Defendants approached principal Michael Grady, superintendent James Brown, and members of the Dixon School District Board to complain about plaintiff's coaching style and performance. When the board and school administration did not remove plaintiff from those positions, defendants continued to campaign against him, forming a group known as the “ Save Dixon Sports Committee.”

Count I alleged defamation per se against Richard Kuecker. Richard published defamatory statements concerning plaintiff's abilities as a basketball coach and athletic director. Attached to the complaint was a February 28, 2008, letter that Richard authored and published on the “Save Dixon Sports” Web site. The letter made defamatory and false statements including that plaintiff only criticized athletes, badgered, humiliated, and bullied players, and was excessively abusive. Richard sent to the school board a petition making similar accusations, which was also posted on the Web site. On March 21, 2008, on WIXN radio, AM 1460, Richard, along with Michael Venier, Glen Hughes, and Al Knickrehm, discussed his dissatisfaction with the school board's failure to remove plaintiff as coach. Knickrehm was the general manager of the radio station, and he had requested that the others appear on the program. Richard stated on the program that plaintiff adversely performed his job, that his coaching philosophy was to verbally abuse, bully, discourage, and desecrate players, and that plaintiff needed to be fired. Richard, along with other members of the “Save Dixon Sports Committee,” posted the radio program on its Web site through April 10, 2008. Also posted on the Web site were additional statements from Richard and others criticizing plaintiff's coaching style and the school board's failure to remove him as coach and athletic director. Richard e-mailed to Matt Trowbridge, a reporter for the Rockford Register Star, defamatory statements, including that plaintiff was a bad coach and an embarrassment to the community and that his abusive behavior amounted to bullying.

An April 10, 2008, letter addressed to Doug Lee, the president of the Dixon school board, was signed by Richard and other members of the “Save Dixon Sports Committee” and published on the Web site. The letter described plaintiff as verbally abusive and unfit to hold the positions that he held. The letter further described defendants' complaints about the school board and the administration not conducting a full investigation and their failure to address the complaints at a March 19, 2008, school board meeting. On April 16, 2008, Richard told [405 Ill.App.3d 841] a reporter for the Rockford Register Star that the situation was not about plaintiff's coaching ability but about his verbal abuse.

Count I alleged that Richard's defamatory statements: imputed to plaintiff an inability to perform his job and/or a lack of integrity in the discharge of his duties; prejudiced plaintiff's ability to perform his duties; and implied that he engaged in criminal activity.

[942 N.E.2d 552 , 347 Ill.Dec. 349]

Count II alleged defamation per se against Glen Hughes and reiterated much of the same conduct alleged against Richard. Count III alleged defamation per se against Michael Venier and reiterated much of the same conduct alleged against Richard. An e-mail dated March 11, 2008, that Michael sent to a Dixon school board member was also attached. The e-mail criticized plaintiff for his “criticizing to the brink of abuse, demands bordering on slavery, [and] serious void of true citizenship.” Count IV alleged defamation per se against Tim Oliver, alleging much of the same conduct alleged against Richard and the others. Counts V and VI alleged defamation per se against Dan Burke and Mary Mahan–Deatherage, respectively, alleging much of the same conduct alleged against Richard and the others. In addition, on April 24, 2008, Mary was quoted in the Dixon Gazette, “Why does there have be an instance of where someone is shoved or pushed? Why can't all these instances of abuse over 10 years ... isn't that enough to fire him?” Counts VII and VIII alleged defamation per se against David Deets and Greg Deatherage, respectively, and alleged much of the same conduct alleged against the others. Additionally, Greg was alleged to have published Richard's February 28 letter on the Northern Illinois Sports Beat Web site. On March 23, 2008, Greg published on that Web site statements that plaintiff was a “psyco [ sic ] nut [who] talks in circles and is only coaching for his glory” and that he did not care about the players. On April 10, also on that site, Greg wrote about plaintiff, “It is his twisted pshyco [ sic ] babble and his abuse of power that we have had enough of” and that plaintiff was a tough, old school coach who tried to break the players down. Greg also allegedly wrote on the Web site saukvalleynews.com that plaintiff abused his power, that plaintiff claimed that girls' sports were not really sports, that plaintiff stated that the Dixon Boosters were a bunch of losers, that plaintiff thought that anyone who did not play basketball was not loyal, and that plaintiff stated that he did not owe the people of Dixon anything.

Count IX alleged defamation per se against Ardis Kuecker, alleging much of the same conduct alleged against the others. In addition, a letter to the editor written by Ardis was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Coll v. First Am. Title Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 26 d2 Abril d2 2011
    ...Noerr–Pennington to state-law tort claim for tortious interference with a business relationship); Sandholm v. Kuecker, 405 Ill.App.3d 835, 347 Ill.Dec. 341, 942 N.E.2d 544, 562–63 (2010) (discussing Illinois courts' application of Noerr–Pennington to some state-law claims), appeal allowed, ......
  • Salem Grain Co. v. Grain
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • 8 d5 Setembro d5 2017
    ...545, 758 A.2d 376 (2000) (state tort claim for tortious interference with business relationship); Sandholm v. Kuecker, 405 Ill.App.3d 835, 942 N.E.2d 544, 347 Ill.Dec. 341 (2010) (state claims), reversed on other grounds 2012 IL 111443, 962 N.E.2d 418, 356 Ill.Dec. 733 (2012) ; Bond v. Ceda......
  • Chi v. Loyola Univ. Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 5 d2 Julho d2 2011
    ...City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Adver., Inc., 499 U.S. 365, 111 S.Ct. 1344, 113 L.Ed.2d 382 (1991). Sandholm v. Kuecker, 405 Ill.App.3d 835, 347 Ill.Dec. 341, 942 N.E.2d 544, 566 (2010). In applying this principle to the issue of whether a person intended to procure favorable government ac......
  • Sandholm v. Kuecker
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 20 d5 Janeiro d5 2012
    ...lawsuit in its entirety, finding defendants immune from liability under the Act. The appellate court affirmed. 405 Ill.App.3d 835, 347 Ill.Dec. 341, 942 N.E.2d 544. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts and remand the cause to the circuit ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles
  • Ethical Complexities in Defamation and False Light Claims
    • United States
    • The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy No. 20-3, July 2022
    • 1 d5 Julho d5 2022
    ...recklessly disregarded the falsity of the publication and the false light in which the other would be placed”); Sandholm v. Kuecker, 405 Ill. App. 3d 835, 850–51 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2010) (citing Duncan v. Peterson, 835 N.E.2d 411, 422–23 (Ill. App. 2005)) (“A false light claim must all......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT