Zagar v. Gomberg
| Decision Date | 15 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1170,76-1170 |
| Citation | 66 Ill.App.3d 611,384 N.E.2d 426 |
| Parties | , 23 Ill.Dec. 632 Lottie A. ZAGAR, Plaintiff-Appellant. v. Nathan M. GOMBERG, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Lottie A. Zagar, pro se.
Gomberg & Schaps, Chicago, for defendants-appellees; Steven P. Gomberg, of counsel.
Plaintiff, Lottie Zagar, appearing Pro se, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice. The sole issue on appeal concerns the legal sufficiency of the complaint.
The complaint alleged that a cause of action for fraud has a five year statute of limitations and that her complaint was filed within the statute; that the defendant Nathan M. Gomberg committed fraud against plaintiff by preparing a false order turning over funds held by the clerk of the circuit court to Gomberg; and that the order was signed by Judge Hunter. The complaint further charged that Gomberg was withdrawn as plaintiff's attorney and was not entitled to legal fees; that the order signed by the judge was void; and that plaintiff's 14th amendment rights were violated. The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages, and plaintiff requested a jury trial. Plaintiff attached various documents to the complaint: plaintiff's motion for the monies held by the clerk of the court; an order signed by the judge granting Gomberg $1,525 of the amount held by the clerk; and an order of court obtained by plaintiff that Gomberg be withdrawn as her attorney.
Gomberg filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. He maintained that it contained the same allegations as the first amended complaint; and that the allegations were vague, conclusory, and failed to properly plead the allegations of fraud. Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition which stated that the second amended complaint was supported by documents and that Gomberg was sufficiently informed of the nature of the claim he was called to meet. The trial court allowed the motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's timely motion to vacate that order.
Upon review, a court must determine whether the allegations of a complaint when interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff are sufficient to set forth a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. (J. J. Harrington & Co. v. Timmerman (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 404, 8 Ill.Dec. 483, 365 N.E.2d 721.) A motion to dismiss admits for purposes of review such allegations of fraud as are well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rocha v. FedEx Corp.
...allegation therein. Simply put, plaintiffs' complaint was verbose and at times incomprehensible. See Zagar v. Gomberg , 66 Ill. App. 3d 611, 612-13, 23 Ill.Dec. 632, 384 N.E.2d 426 (1978) (finding the circuit court properly dismissed a plaintiff's second amended complaint where it was "some......
-
Village of Wheeling v. Stavros
...favorable to plaintiff are sufficient to set forth a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. (Zager v. Gomberg (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 611, 23 Ill.Dec. 632, 384 N.E.2d 426; J. J. Harrington & Co. v. Timmerman (1977), 50 Ill.App.3d 404, 8 Ill.Dec. 483, 365 N.E.2d 721.) An action shou......
-
Buchalo v. Country Mut. Ins. Co., 79-912
...77 Ill.2d 108, 111, 32 Ill.Dec. 319, 395 N.E.2d 549), but not legal conclusions stated by the pleader (Zagar v. Gomberg (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 611, 612, 23 Ill.Dec. 632, 384 N.E.2d 426). This motion raised an issue of law as to whether the petition for arbitration was timely filed under the ......
-
McGill v. Lazzaro, 79-1676
...but does not admit conclusions of law or conclusions of fact unsupported by specific allegations. (See Zagar v. Gomberg (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 611, 612, 23 Ill.Dec. 632, 384 N.E.2d 426.) In the case at bar, plaintiffs' complaint is rife with conclusory language, but fails to include any fact......