{ "id": 171727, "name": "LANDAU, OMAHANA AND KOPKA, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FRANCISCAN SISTERS HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, d/b/a St. Therese Medical Center, et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd. v. Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corp.", "decision_date": "2001-06-20", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201400\u20141243", "first_page": "487", "last_page": "495", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "323 Ill. App. 3d 487" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "114 Ill. App. 3d 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3591771 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "530", "parenthetical": "standing is meant to \" 'preclude persons having no interest in the controversy from bringing suit' \"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/114/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 N.E.2d 881", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 Ill. App. 3d 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3413013 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "255" }, { "page": "254" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/56/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "721 N.E.2d 605", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "generally, only a party to a contract, or one in privity with a party, may sue on a contract" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 Ill. App. 3d 192", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 349630 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "199", "parenthetical": "generally, only a party to a contract, or one in privity with a party, may sue on a contract" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/309/0192-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Ill. App. 3d 743", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2892031 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "748" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/45/0743-01" ] }, { "cite": "528 N.E.2d 421", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 Ill. App. 3d 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3517195 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "425" }, { "page": "427" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/174/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "688 N.E.2d 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 Ill. 2d 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 801355 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/179/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "524 N.E.2d 561", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 Ill. 2d 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5549613 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "492" }, { "page": "493" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/122/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "678 N.E.2d 792", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Lack of standing is properly brought forth in a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 Ill. App. 3d 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 520952 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "550", "parenthetical": "Lack of standing is properly brought forth in a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/287/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "731 N.E.2d 343", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 Ill. App. 3d 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 140080 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "85" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/314/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "700 N.E.2d 202", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 Ill. App. 3d 1040", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1073634 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1046" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/298/1040-01" ] }, { "cite": "617 N.E.2d 178", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "247 Ill. App. 3d 25", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2930703 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "29" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/247/0025-01" ] }, { "cite": "743 N.E.2d 621", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 Ill. App. 3d 1056", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 279662 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1060" }, { "page": "1060" }, { "page": "1060" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/318/1056-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 766, "char_count": 16683, "ocr_confidence": 0.785, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.454604561672698e-08, "percentile": 0.4443869121327151 }, "sha256": "4afc90faeabd026674adc6523903640daf3a8de08f02b46a22368558cfac0e29", "simhash": "1:2fbe3c5edb4e1065", "word_count": 2677 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:00:03.625992+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "LANDAU, OMAHANA AND KOPKA, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FRANCISCAN SISTERS HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, d/b/a St. Therese Medical Center, et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WOLFSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is a peculiar case. It raises questions about whether a promise not to enforce a judgment was made and why it would have been made. We are asked to explore lawyers\u2019 motives and stratagems.\nThe controversy was triggered by a legal malpractice complaint file by Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians (Northern Illinois) against a law firm, Landau, Omahana, & Kopka, Ltd. (Landau). Not this case. Before that, there was a medical malpractice lawsuit brought against Northern Illinois, St. Therese Medical Center (St. Therese), and Dr. Bruce Sands by Eric and Lori Johnson (the Johnsons). Again, not this case.\nThis case concerns a purported promise or assurance by St. Therese that it would not enforce any indemnity judgment it might win against Northern Illinois. Here, Landau seeks to enforce that promise. We hold Landau lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. For that reason, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order dismissing all four counts of Landau\u2019s amended complaint.\nFACTS\nWe take relevant facts from Landau\u2019s pleadings and the exhibits attached.\nIn 1991, the Johnsons filed a medical malpractice claim in the circuit court of Lake County against defendants St. Therese, Northern Illinois, and Dr. Bruce Sands. Northern Illinois provided medical services to St. Therese pursuant to contract. Dr. Sands was a partner in Northern Illinois and provided medical services in St. Therese\u2019s emergency room.\nNorthern Illinois and Dr. Sands were insured by Premier Insurance (Premier). Premier retained a law firm to represent Northern Illinois and Dr. Sands. During the pendency of the medical malpractice case, Premier went into receivership.\nAfterwards, the Illinois Insurance Guarantee Fund (the Fund) assumed the defense of Northern Illinois and Dr. Sands. The Fund retained the Landau firm and Bower\u2014one of Landau\u2019s attorneys\u2014to defend in the medical malpractice action. Northern Illinois also retained Steven J. Schostok as additional counsel.\nSt. Therese demanded the Fund assume its defense and indemnify it pursuant to an agreement it had with Northern Illinois. The Fund refused, and Michael F. Henrick of Hinshaw and Culbertson represented St. Therese throughout the Johnsons\u2019 lawsuit.\nBefore trial, the Johnsons said they would settle their medical malpractice claim if the Fund agreed to pay $600,000\u2014which represented the liability limits of a $300,000 policy covering Dr. Sands and a $300,000 policy covering Northern Illinois. The Fund refused, maintaining there was only one policy covering Dr. Sands and Northern Illinois. That policy\u2019s maximum statutory limit was $300,000.\nOn March 11, 1996, the first day of trial, Henrick made an oral motion on behalf of St. Therese for leave to file a third-party complaint (actually a counterclaim) for indemnification against Northern Illinois and Dr. Sands. Bower orally objected to the motion on behalf of Northern Illinois. The initial trial judge declined to rule on St. Therese\u2019s motion and continued the motion until the assigned trial judge could hear it.\nHenrick then approached Landau and Schostok and told them the purpose of filing the third-party complaint for indemnification was to force the Fund to settle the matter for $600,000. He \u201cassured\u201d them St. Therese would not seek enforcement of any judgment resulting from the indemnity claim. Bower told Henrick he had to make at least \u201csome objection\u201d to the indemnity claim. Henrick agreed.\nHenrick renewed St. Therese\u2019s motion before the assigned trial judge. Bower then objected on the ground of \u201ctimeliness.\u201d The assigned trial judge overruled the objection and granted St. Therese\u2019s motion, giving St. Therese leave to file its third-party complaint.\nAfter settlement negotiations between the Fund and the Johnsons failed, the case was tried to a jury. Henrick continued to \u201cassure\u201d Schostok and Bower that St. Therese would not seek to enforce any judgment obtained against Northern Illinois. The jury returned a verdict against all the defendants for $4 million.\nThe trial court directed a verdict against Northern Illinois and Dr. Sands and in favor of St. Therese for indemnification in the amount of $4 million. The trial court denied posttrial motions.\nNorthern Illinois appealed from the entry of the indemnity judgment. In that appeal, Northern Illinois filed a bystander\u2019s report stating it objected to the filing of the third-party complaint on grounds of timeliness. Northern Illinois contended the third-party complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed the judgment.\nOn March 18, 1998, Northern Illinois and the individual partners sued Landau for legal malpractice. Northern Illinois alleged the law firm breached the standard of care by failing to respond to or file a motion to dismiss St. Therese\u2019s third-party complaint in the Johnson case.\nOn April 20, 1998, St. Therese satisfied the entire judgment. Since paying the judgment, St. Therese has not attempted to enforce its indemnity judgment against Northern Illinois. St. Therese\u2019s only action was to seek $600,000 from the Fund, and the filing of a nonwage garnishment notice against the Fund for the entire amount of the judgment entered against Northern Illinois. As yet, Northern Illinois has paid nothing to St. Therese.\nLandau moved to dismiss Northern Illinois\u2019s legal malpractice action. Landau contended Northern Illinois failed to allege the requisite element of proximately caused actual damages since St. Therese is barred from enforcing any judgment against Northern Illinois because of \u201cpromises\u201d and \u201can agreement\u201d between it and Northern Illinois. The trial court denied Landau\u2019s motion.\nOn August 20, 1999, plaintiffs filed this suit for declaratory judgment and other equitable relief, seeking \u201cto preclude, estop or enjoin St. Therese from enforcing the indemnity judgment against Northern Illinois.\u201d Each of the four counts of the amended complaint seeks relief based on an alleged oral contract between St. Therese and Northern Illinois.\nCount I of Landau\u2019s amended complaint seeks a declaration that, pursuant to the \u201cbinding\u201d agreement between St. Therese and Northern Illinois, St. Therese is precluded from enforcing the indemnity judgment against Northern Illinois.\nCount II is for promissory estoppel. Landau requests, based on St. Therese\u2019s \u201cclear and unambiguous promise,\u201d a finding the indemnity judgment cannot be enforced against Northern Illinois.\nCount III is for specific performance. Landau requests specific performance of the \u201coral contract,\u201d i.e., St. Therese\u2019s promise not to enforce the indemnity judgment against Northern Illinois.\nCount IV is for \u201cinjunctive relief.\u201d Landau requests St. Therese be permanently enjoined and restrained from enforcing the indemnity judgment against Northern Illinois.\nSt. Therese and Northern Illinois did not file an answer to the amended complaint. Instead, they filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to section 2\u2014615 and section 2\u2014619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) (735 ILCS 5/2\u2014615, 2\u2014619 (West 1998)), contending (1) plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action; (2) the amended complaint alleged conclusions and failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action based on an oral contract; (3) the amended complaint failed to allege the parties\u2019 counsel had authority to enter into such a contract; (4) plaintiffs\u2019 action was precluded by another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and (5) the alleged oral agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds.\nOn March 17, 2000, the trial court granted St. Therese\u2019s and Northern Illinois\u2019s motions to dismiss Landau\u2019s amended complaint. The order states in full:\n\u201cDefendants\u2019 Motions to Dismiss pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2\u2014615 and 735 ILCS 5/2\u2014619 is granted.\u201d\nThis appeal followed.\nDECISION\n\u20221 \u201cWhen ruling on a motion to dismiss under either section 2\u2014615 or section 2\u2014619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the circuit court must interpret all pleadings and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.\u201d Dial Corp. v. Marine Office, 318 Ill. App. 3d 1056, 1060, 743 N.E.2d 621 (2001).\nThe trial court should grant the motion to dismiss only if the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would support a cause of action. Dial Corp., 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1060. \u201cConclusions of law or conclusions of fact which are unsupported by specific factual allegations are not admitted.\u201d SBL Associates v. Village of Elk Grove, 247 Ill. App. 3d 25, 29, 617 N.E.2d 178 (1993).\n\u20222 We review de nova the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2\u2014615 and section 2\u2014619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2\u2014615, 2\u2014619 (West 1998)). Dial Corp., 318 Ill. App. 3d at 1060. Because the trial court did not specify any grounds it relied on in dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 complaint, we will presume plaintiffs\u2019 complaint was dismissed on one of the grounds argued by defendants. Storm & Associates, Ltd. v. Cuculich, 298 Ill. App. 3d 1040, 1046, 700 N.E.2d 202 (1998). We may affirm the trial court on any basis in the record. McGuire v. Ameritech Cellular Corp., 314 Ill. App. 3d 83, 85, 731 N.E.2d 343 (2000).\nHere, Landau contends the trial court \u201cerred in dismissing the amended complaint for declaratory judgment and other equitable relief based on St. Therese\u2019s agreement not to execute the indemnity judgment against plaintiffs\u2019 former client, Northern Illinois.\u201d\nSt. Therese and Northern Illinois offer several reasons why the trial court was correct to have dismissed Landau\u2019s amended complaint. We agree with one of them. We find Landau lacks standing to assert its causes of action against St. Therese and Northern Illinois. See Kaden v. Pucinski, 287 Ill. App. 3d 546, 550, 678 N.E.2d 792 (1997) (Lack of standing is properly brought forth in a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2\u2014619).\nSTANDING\n\u20223 \u201c[Standing in Illinois requires only some injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest.\u201d Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462, 492, 524 N.E.2d 561 (1988). \u201cThe doctrine of standing requires that a party have a real interest in the action brought and its outcome.\u201d Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Aldridge, 179 Ill. 2d 141, 147, 688 N.E.2d 90 (1997).\nThe claimed injury must be distinct, traceable to the defendant\u2019s actions, and substantially likely to be prevented or redressed by the grant of the requested relief. Greer, 122 Ill. 2d at 493.\n\u201c \u2018The doctrine is used to insure that the courts are available to decide actual, specific controversies between the parties and are not overwhelmed in the mire of abstract questions, moot issues, or cases brought on behalf of other parties who do not desire judicial aid.\u2019 \u201d Inland Real Estate Corp. v. Tower Construction Co., 174 Ill. App. 3d 421, 425, 528 N.E.2d 421 (1988), quoting Lynch v. Devine, 45 Ill. App. 3d 743, 748 (1977).\nThe question before us is whether, for purposes of this lawsuit, Landau has a legally protected interest in the alleged \u201coral agreement\u201d between St. Therese and Northern Illinois.\nLandau contends it is \u201cclearly threatened with an injury to a legally recognized interest [because] it represented Northern Illinois in reaching the agreement with St. Therese and has been sued by Northern Illinois for legal malpractice alleging as damages a judgment which cannot be collected pursuant to the agreement.\u201d\nLandau suggests it has \u201can obvious interest in having the agreement enforced and will be benefitted by the relief it seeks in this action, since enforcement of the agreement would completely defeat Northern Illinois\u2019 pending malpractice claim.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Landau contends \u201c[u]nless the agreement is enforced, Landau could be liable for in excess of $4 million and Northern Illinois will be unjustly enriched in that amount.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nDefendants respond that without any factual assertions showing the existence of a contractual relationship between Landau and St. Therese and Northern Illinois, the trial court properly dismissed those counts \u201cpremised on the existence of an alleged agreement between St. Therese and [Northern Illinois].\u201d See Gallagher Corp. v. Steven B. Russ, 309 Ill. App. 3d 192, 199, 721 N.E.2d 605 (1999) (generally, only a party to a contract, or one in privity with a party, may sue on a contract). We agree.\nIn Weihl v. Dixon, 56 Ill. App. 3d 251, 371 N.E.2d 881 (1977), an attorney sued the Illinois Secretary of State in an action seeking a declaration that a single-shareholder corporation, permitted under Illinois law, need not engage another person to serve as secretary. The court affirmed the trial judge\u2019s dismissal of the action on the ground the attorney lacked standing to sue, despite his contention he had many single-shareholder corporate clients. The court said:\n\u201cMoreover, that the instant action involves questions directly affecting the interests of plaintiff\u2019s clients can give him no more right, title or interest in the subject matter of the controversy than a physician would have to the body of his patient. No annual report of plaintiffs was refused by defendant but only those of plaintiffs clients. It is they whose rights were allegedly infringed and thus it is they who must seek redress. Plaintiff may not invoke a remedy on behalf of others who do not seek or desire it. Consequently we find plaintiff lacks standing to bring the instant action.\u201d Weihl, 56 Ill. App. 3d at 255.\n\u20224 Here, Landau seeks to have St. Therese and Northern Illinois\u2019s \u201crights and obligations declared and enforced to avoid an unjust result.\u201d Nothing in the alleged St. Therese/N orthern Illinois agreement gives Landau standing to sue. See also Inland Real Estate Corp., 174 Ill. App. 3d at 427, quoting Wolinsky v. Kadison, 114 Ill. App. 3d 527, 530 (1983) (standing is meant to \u201c \u2018preclude persons having no interest in the controversy from bringing suit\u2019 \u201d).\nLandau was not a party to the alleged St. Therese/N orthern Illinois agreement. Moreover, Landau never claimed the alleged St. Therese/Northern Illinois agreement was made for its benefit nor did it ever claim to be a third-party beneficiary to the agreement.\nThe relationship Landau had with Northern Illinois did not grant any authority to Landau to enforce the alleged St. Therese/Northern Illinois agreement.\nIf there is a controversy here, it is between St. Therese and Northern Illinois. There may be a time and place to litigate the existence of an \u201cassurance\u201d by Northern Illinois, but this is not it. In short, Landau is not a party to any alleged oral contract and we find no authority that allows him to seek to enforce it. See Weihl, 56 Ill. App. 3d at 254.\nLandau asks us to delve into the motives of St. Therese and Northern Illinois for behaving the way they have. That is, why the promise to forbear enforcement in the first place? Why not try to enforce the indemnity judgment? Is Landau being set up for an improper windfall judgment?\nWhile the motivational inquiry we are asked to make might be interesting, it would not, in the end, be very useful. In fact, it would deter us from the controlling ultimate fact in this case: the promise, if it exists, is not Landau\u2019s to enforce. At least, not here and now.\nLandau also urges us to consider section 2\u2014406(b) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2\u2014406(b) (West 1998)). It contends \u201cstanding is also established by the rules governing third-party practice.\u201d Since there is no third-party defendant in this case, we fail to see how a rule devised to protect a third-party defendant would apply.\nBecause each of the four counts of Landau\u2019s amended complaint seeks relief based on an alleged oral contract between St. Therese and Northern Illinois, Landau lacks standing with respect to all of the counts in its amended complaint.\nCONCLUSION\nWe affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of St. Therese\u2019s and Northern IIlinois\u2019s motions to dismiss the amended complaint because Landau lacks standing to bring this action.\nAffirmed.\nCERDA and BURKE, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WOLFSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Clausen Miller, P.C., of Chicago (James O. Nolan, Edward M. Kay, Richard M. Kaplan, and Imelda Terrazino, of counsel), for appellants.", "Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago (David H. Levitt and Christine L. Olson, of counsel), for appellee Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corporation.", "Robert A. Egan, P.C., of Chicago (Robert A. Egan and Noelle Ansley, of counsel), for other appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LANDAU, OMAHANA AND KOPKA, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FRANCISCAN SISTERS HEALTH CARE CORPORATION, d/b/a St. Therese Medical Center, et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201400\u20141243\nOpinion filed June 20, 2001.\n\u2014Rehearing denied July 12, 2001.\nClausen Miller, P.C., of Chicago (James O. Nolan, Edward M. Kay, Richard M. Kaplan, and Imelda Terrazino, of counsel), for appellants.\nHinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago (David H. Levitt and Christine L. Olson, of counsel), for appellee Franciscan Sisters Health Care Corporation.\nRobert A. Egan, P.C., of Chicago (Robert A. Egan and Noelle Ansley, of counsel), for other appellees." }, "file_name": "0487-01", "first_page_order": 505, "last_page_order": 513 }