{
  "id": 221490,
  "name": "PRE FAB TRANSIT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FONTAINE TRAILER COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pre Fab Transit Co. v. Fontaine Trailer Co.",
  "decision_date": "1998-09-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 4-97-1140",
  "first_page": "293",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "299 Ill. App. 3d 293"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "606 N.E.2d 541",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "544"
        },
        {
          "page": "543"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 Ill. App. 3d 692",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5155696
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "697"
        },
        {
          "page": "696"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/238/0692-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 548,
    "char_count": 10373,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.008777731829152974
    },
    "sha256": "c1c88ccf725f119698aa14eb0b324b72ffb9e3c77bd0651cd7ae80960d37912c",
    "simhash": "1:9f4673ad6bcd1c04",
    "word_count": 1740
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:33.989314+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "KNECHT and COOK, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PRE FAB TRANSIT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FONTAINE TRAILER COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE GREEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Pre Fab Transit Company, a corporation, appeals an order entered December 1, 1997, in the circuit court of De Witt County, dismissing its complaint against defendants\u2019 Fontaine Trailer Company, Inc. (Fontaine), and Independent Trailer and Repair, Inc. (Independent Trailer), on the ground of forum non conveniens.\nOn appeal, Pre Fab contends the trial court erred (1) by not affording plaintiff sufficient time to conduct discovery on the issue of forum non conveniens-, (2) in ruling in favor of defendants on the issue of forum non conveniens without conducting a hearing on that motion or affording plaintiff an opportunity to respond to that motion; and (3) by entering an order dismissing the complaint on grounds of forum non conveniens. We conclude plaintiff was not given a fair opportunity to present its position. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new hearing on the issue of forum non conveniens.\nPlaintiffs complaint contained 15 counts and sought money damages arising from damage to its equipment when dollies manufactured by defendant Independent Trailer and sold to plaintiff by Fontaine Trailer malfunctioned.\nForum non conveniens is a doctrine based on consideration of fundamental fairness and sensible, effective judicial administration. It allows a court to decline to hear a case, even though it may have jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, when it appears that another forum can better serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd\u2019s, London v. Bertrand Goldberg Associates, Inc., 238 Ill. App. 3d 692, 697, 606 N.E.2d 541, 544 (1992).\nThe dispute in this case arises from uncertainty as to what was said at a hearing held on November 13 or 14, 1997. Prior to that time, both defendants had made motions to dismiss pursuant to section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615 (West 1996)). The parties agree that prior to that date no mention had been made in regard to whether the issue of forum non conveniens was involved. The record indicates that a pretrial conference was scheduled for November 13, 1997. The court\u2019s docket contained an entry dated \u201c11/14/97\u201d indicating the parties appeared by counsel and that the court indicated to counsel that plaintiff no longer was \u201ca corporate resident of De Witt Co., II.\u201d The docket further stated: \u201ccounsel to brief question of forum, non conveniens & to submit briefs to court within 7 days.\u201d\nThe foregoing docket entry then stated \u201c[cjounsel will then make a decision concerning proper forum based on said memorandums.\u201d (Emphasis added.) The docket entry further stated: \u201c[cjounsel for Pltf[.] [sic] Ind. Trailer files mtn[.j to dsms.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Finally, the docket entry stated \u201c[cjounsel for pltf[.j indicates he will confess each mtn[.j pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615 if the court determines this is a proper forum for this case\u201d and \u201c[sjaid action reserved until court determines issue as to proper forum.\u201d At the side of the entry is a notation \u201cchg[.j 11/19/1997.\u201d\nOn November 19, 1997, defendant Independent Trailer filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. On November 20, 1997, plaintiff filed a memorandum regarding proper jurisdiction and venue. On December 1, 1997, the circuit court entered the order on appeal purporting to act on both the \u201ccourt\u2019s suggestion of forum non conveniens\u201d and Independent Trailer\u2019s motion.\nA hearing was held on April 11, 1998, to settle a bystander\u2019s bill as to what happened at the hearing on November 13 or November 14, 1997. This was important because the theory of defendants is that the issue of forum non conveniens was raised at this meeting. The evidence is clear that if the issue was properly raised there, plaintiff waived further hearing on that issue and agreed the court could proceed on memoranda presented by the parties.\nThe most significant testimony at that hearing was that of M. Tod Melton, who was counsel for Independent Trailer in November 1997, but who had later withdrawn from the case. Melton stated in part:\n\u201cWhen we came into court to have a hearing on the motions, Judge Peters posed the question of whether it was properly in front of this Court. After some discussion about that, I suggested that it seemed prudent we address that issue and get it out of the way before we go forward on the merits. All of the attorneys seemed to agree with that and thought it was a good idea. We talked about doing it in a simplified manner in a briefing schedule and the parties seemed to be in agreement that they could have briefs..., filed and sent to the Court, within seven days and we would proceed to have the Court rule on the briefs or memoranda without need for further oral argument.\u201d\nMelton expanded on that testimony during the following colloquy:\n\u201cQuestion: Other than that, it was your understanding that there was to be no further hearing?\nAnswer: Not on the forum non conveniens. We thought at that time it would be addressed by the Court, we would file our briefs each within seven days, I remember that specifically. It was not seven to file, seven to respond, seven to reply; it was [all] parties were to file within seven days and the [judge] would read the briefs and issue a written ruling unless he felt there was a need for further oral argument.\u201d\nHowever, he also testified he did not remember the \u201cexact words\u201d forum non conveniens ever being used at the hearing on November 13 or 14, 1997.\nPlaintiffs counsel responded to meritorious testimony by stating: \u201cI have a fairly vivid recollection of the hearing in November \u201997 and my recollection, there is nothing that Mr. Melton has testified to that I can say I disagree with.\u201d However, plaintiffs counsel did testify he never understood they were arguing about any issue other than jurisdiction and venue and, accordingly, he directed the memorandum he filed to those two issues.\nAlso presented at the April 11, 1998, hearing was a letter written by Melton to Independent Trailer\u2019s present counsel dated March 2, 1998. That letter set forth his recollections of the November 13 or 14, 1997, hearing. The circuit court certified this document as a bystander\u2019s bill setting forth what occurred at that time.\nWe recognize that in Certain Underwriters, 238 Ill. App. 3d at 696, 606 N.E.2d at 543, in the course of a hearing on a defense motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the parties discussed the question of forum non conveniens. In an informal manner, as here, the circuit court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens. However, there, unlike here, no uncertainty was indicated as to whether the plaintiff understood that was the issue upon which further hearing was being waived and upon which the court was to be briefed.\nThe record here gives little indication that the term \u201cforum non conveniens\u201d was ever used in the discussions on November 13 or 14, 1997. Melton, the writer of the letter settled upon by the court as the bystander\u2019s report of that hearing, testified he could not say for sure that the term \u201cforum non conveniens\u201d was ever used. Certainly, plaintiffs counsel did not understand that theory was in issue, as he completely omitted reference to it in his memorandum. While the word \u201cforum\u201d was probably used, that word is also pertinent in regard to venue.\nAt all pertinent times, Supreme Court Rule 187(b) has provided:\n\u201c(b) Proceedings on motions. Hearings on motions to dismiss or transfer the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens shall be scheduled so as to allow the parties sufficient time to conduct discovery on issues of fact raised by such motions. Such motions may be supported and opposed by affidavit. In determining issues of fact raised by affidavits, any competent evidence adduced by the parties shall also be considered. The determination of any issue of fact in connection with such a motion does not constitute a determination of the merits of the case or any aspect thereof.\u201d 134 Ill. 2d R. 187(b).\nThe foregoing indicates a policy of giving plaintiffs, subject to a forum non conveniens motion, a fair opportunity to respond. Plaintiff should have filed a motion to reconsider in the circuit court when he received notice of the dismissal, but, in view of the uncertain procedure used here, we do not hold that the error that occurred was waived. If an issue such as forum non conveniens is raised without being formally pleaded or by written or pronounced court order, the court should be careful to ensure all parties understand that issue has been raised. We reverse and remand for a new hearing on the issue of whether forum non conveniens applies here. Before such a hearing, the court shall give the parties an opportunity for further briefing on the subject.\nOn remand, the circuit court should recognize that the type of forum non conveniens to be applied here is of the interstate type. See 134 Ill. 2d R 187(c). If that were not so, the appropriate remedy would have been a transfer of the case to the appropriate Illinois court (134 Ill. 2d R 187(c)(1)). Under these circumstances the question before the court on remand is whether the courts of some other state are more appropriate than the courts of this state. See 3 R Michael, Illinois Practice \u00a7\u00a7 14.1 through 14.3, at 161-72 (1989). Under these circumstances, the fact that plaintiff moved its office from De Witt County to Champaign County is of little significance.\nAs indicated, we reverse the order dismissing plaintiffs complaint and remand to the circuit court of De Witt County. That court shall then hold a new hearing on the issue of forum non conveniens after giving the parties an opportunity to brief the issue.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nKNECHT and COOK, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE GREEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douglas N. Koth (argued), of Koth & Cannell, PC., of Bloomington, for appellant.",
      "Karen L. Kendall, of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria, for appellee Fontaine Trailer Company.",
      "Lawrence M. Kaschak (argued), of Herbolsheimer, Lannon, Henson, Duncan & Reagan, of La Salle, for appellee Independent Trailer & Repair Company."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PRE FAB TRANSIT COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FONTAINE TRAILER COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201497\u20141140\nArgued August 12, 1998.\nOpinion filed September 28, 1998.\nDouglas N. Koth (argued), of Koth & Cannell, PC., of Bloomington, for appellant.\nKaren L. Kendall, of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria, for appellee Fontaine Trailer Company.\nLawrence M. Kaschak (argued), of Herbolsheimer, Lannon, Henson, Duncan & Reagan, of La Salle, for appellee Independent Trailer & Repair Company."
  },
  "file_name": "0293-01",
  "first_page_order": 311,
  "last_page_order": 315
}