{ "id": 894535, "name": "LUCYNA ZAWADZKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CHICAGO, a Corporation, Indiv. and d/b/a Five Holy Martyrs Catholic Church, et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Zawadzka v. Catholic Bishop", "decision_date": "2003-01-22", "docket_number": "No. 1-02-1600", "first_page": "66", "last_page": "71", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "337 Ill. App. 3d 66" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "594 N.E.2d 347", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 Ill. App. 3d 631", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5216826 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/229/0631-01" ] }, { "cite": "672 N.E.2d 919", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "failure to cite to authority in support of an argument as required by Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (188 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(7)) waives the argument" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 Ill. App. 3d 891", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1260358 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "901", "parenthetical": "failure to cite to authority in support of an argument as required by Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (188 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(7)) waives the argument" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/284/0891-01" ] }, { "cite": "703 N.E.2d 606", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 Ill. App. 3d 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 257126 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "528" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/301/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "673 N.E.2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 Ill. App. 3d 1035", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1260379 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1041-43" }, { "page": "1044" }, { "page": "1044" }, { "page": "1044" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/284/1035-01" ] }, { "cite": "664 N.E.2d 267", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 Ill. App. 3d 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 75354 ], "weight": 15, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "110" }, { "page": "111" }, { "page": "111" }, { "page": "111, 114" }, { "page": "112" }, { "page": "112, 114" }, { "page": "112" }, { "page": "112" }, { "page": "112" }, { "page": "112" }, { "page": "113-14" }, { "page": "114" }, { "page": "114" }, { "page": "114" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/279/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 N.E.2d 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Ill. 2d 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2822900 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/29/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "449 N.E.2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. 2d 150", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3113729 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" }, { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/96/0150-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 606, "char_count": 12934, "ocr_confidence": 0.735, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.456583025697791e-08, "percentile": 0.27908750664614035 }, "sha256": "573de2909c82c34babe8828b40f15176b703926008bc4fd372f6bbf86fae32ed", "simhash": "1:a37c5f7e4f6b944c", "word_count": 2125 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:38:38.563173+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "LUCYNA ZAWADZKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CHICAGO, a Corporation, Indiv. and d/b/a Five Holy Martyrs Catholic Church, et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WOLFSON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn October 9, 2001, Lucyna Zawadzka filed a sexual misconduct lawsuit against Father Walter Strus, the Catholic Bishop of Chicago, and Five Holy Martyrs Catholic Church, among others. Part of her claims against the Catholic Bishop and Five Holy Martyrs was based on the doctrine of respondeat superior.\nOn April 26, 2002, the trial court dismissed with prejudice all counts against the Catholic Bishop and Five Holy Martyrs that were based on the doctrine of respondeat superior. On May 2, 2002, Zawadzka filed an amended complaint that contained no respondeat superior claims against the Catholic Bishop or Five Holy Martyrs. No mention was made in the amended complaint of the dismissed claims or an intent to appeal. On May 23, 2002, Zawadzka filed a notice of appeal.\nOn appeal, Zawadzka contends the trial court erred in dismissing the claims based on respondeat superior. We do not reach the merits of her appeal because Zawadzka waived our review of this issue.\nBACKGROUND\nAccording to Zawadzka\u2019s original complaint filed on October 9, 2001, the Catholic Bishop owned and operated a Catholic parish commonly known as Five Holy Martyrs. The Catholic Bishop also employed Father Walter Strus as the parish priest assigned to Five Holy Martyrs.\nSometime before October 15, 1999, Father Strus convinced Zawadzka to move from her family home in Poland to the United States. He promised to sponsor her and assist her in finding housing and employment and obtaining permanent residence in the United States. Father Strus arranged for Zawadzka\u2019s housing and employment upon her arrival.\nWhen Zawadzka arrived in the United States, she became a member of Five Holy Martyrs. She had contact with Father Strus as a parishioner of Five Holy Martyrs. She would seek his advice and counsel regarding problems or concerns. Father Strus was aware he was Zawadzka\u2019s only contact in the United States.\nOn October 15, 1999, Father Strus visited Zawadzka at her home and forced unwanted sexual intercourse on Zawadzka. Zawadzka became pregnant. When she told Father Strus about the pregnancy, he said he would arrange for an adoption through Catholic Charities. He told her to keep the pregnancy secret for as long as possible and keep secret that he was the father of the child. Father Strus threatened to have Zawadzka deported if she refused to cooperate.\nWhen her pregnancy became apparent, Zawadzka was unable to continue her employment. Father Strus then provided Zawadzka with living arrangements and payments for living expenses.\nZawadzka provided false information regarding the father of the child to Catholic Charities at Father Strus\u2019s demand. Father Strus provided the signature of the \u201cfather\u201d on the adoption application.\nIn July 2000, when the child was born, Zawadzka decided not to go through with the adoption. Around October 2000, she sought assistance from the archdiocese and informed it of her position and Father Strus\u2019s role.\nWhen Father Strus was confronted by his superiors about the allegations, he denied paternity and suggested Zawadzka was romantically involved with another priest at Five Holy Martyrs.\nIn late October 2000, Father Strus submitted to DNA testing. The results confirmed that Father Strus is the father of the child.\nZawadzka\u2019s complaint contained counts alleging negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery, invasion of privacy/ false light, defamation per se, and defamation per quod. All counts appeared to allege the Catholic Bishop and Five Holy Martyrs were vicariously hable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Zawadzka also alleged the Catholic Bishop and Five Holy Martyrs were directly negligent.\nOn November 20, 2001, the Catholic Bishop and Five Holy Martyrs moved to dismiss Zawadzka\u2019s claims against them pursuant to section 2 \u2014 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 615 (West 2000).\nOn April 26, 2002, Zawadzka\u2019s claim of direct negligence against the Catholic Bishop and Five Holy Martyrs was stricken with leave to amend. Her claims of vicarious liability based on the respondeat superior were dismissed with prejudice. The court also found that under Supreme Court Rule 304(a) there was \u201cno just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal\u201d from the dismissal of the respondeat superior claims. See 155 Ill. 2d R. 304(a).\nOn May 2, 2002, Zawadzka filed an amended complaint that alleged direct negligence against the Catholic Bishop and Five Holy Martyrs but did not raise or otherwise mention the claims based on respondeat superior.\nOn May 23, 2002, Zawadzka filed her notice of appeal.\nDECISION\nWaiver\nA party who files an amended complaint waives any objection to the trial court\u2019s ruling on the former complaints. Foxcroft Townhome Owners Ass\u2019n v. Hoffman Rosner Corp., 96 Ill. 2d 150, 153, 449 N.E.2d 125 (1983). Where the amended complaint is complete in itself and does not refer to or adopt the prior complaint, the prior complaint \u201c \u2018ceases to be a part of the record for most purposes, being in effect abandoned and withdrawn.\u2019 \u201d Foxcroft, 96 Ill. 2d at 154, quoting Bowman v. County of Lake, 29 Ill. 2d 268, 272, 193 N.E.2d 833 (1963).\nIn Tabora v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 279 Ill. App. 3d 108, 664 N.E.2d 267 (1996), the plaintiff, a doctor, sued the defendant, a hospital, after the defendant revoked the plaintiff\u2019s staff privileges. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 110. On February 26, 1993, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 111. On September 22, 1993, the trial court dismissed with prejudice portions of the second amended complaint. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 111. On October 5, 1993, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint that made no mention of the dismissed portions of the second amended complaint. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 111, 114.\nOn January 21, 1994, the trial court dismissed with prejudice portions of the plaintiffs third amended complaint and specified that there was no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal of the dismissed portions. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 112. On February 16, 1994, the plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint that made no mention of the dismissed portions of the third amended complaint. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 112, 114. On February 17, 1994, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the trial court\u2019s January 21, 1994, order. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 112.\nThe trial court issued an order on March 21, 1994, making its order of September 22, 1993, final and appealable. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 112. On March 31, 1994, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the trial court\u2019s March 21, 1994, order. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 112. The two appeals were consolidated. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 112.\nWe concluded the plaintiff waived any objection to the trial court\u2019s rulings on the second amended complaint and the third amended complaint under the Foxcroft rule. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 113-14. After each ruling, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that \u201cdid not reallege, refer to, incorporate, or preserve the stricken portions of his [previous] complaint[s].\u201d Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 114. By doing so, the plaintiff waived our review of the trial court\u2019s ruling even though he filed a timely notice of appeal in each case. Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 114.\nZawadzka\u2019s amended complaint did not refer to or adopt her previous complaint or the claims based on respondeat superior. As we said in Tabora, \u201cA simple paragraph or footnote in the amended pleadings notifying defendants and the court that plaintiff was preserving the dismissed portion of his former complaints for appeal would have been sufficient to avoid the consequences of the Foxcroft rule.\u201d Tabora, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 114.\nZawadzka contends that, despite the Foxcroft rule, she has riot waived our review of this issue for two reasons.\nFirst, she says Brown Leasing, Inc. v. Stone, 284 Ill. App. 3d 1035, 673 N.E.2d 430 (1996), supports her contention that we should reach the merits of her case. In Brown Leasing, Inc., the trial court dismissed some of the plaintiffs claims. After the plaintiff filed its notice of appeal, it filed an amended complaint that did not refer to the dismissed claims. Brown Leasing, Inc., 284 Ill. App. 3d at 1041-43.\nWe held no waiver occurred because the plaintiff filed the amended pleading after it had perfected the appeal. Brown Leasing, Inc., 284 Ill. App. 3d at 1044. Once the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to allow the filing of an amended pleading that could moot the appeal. Brown Leasing, Inc., 284 Ill. App. 3d at 1044.\nBrown Leasing, Inc. does not apply here. Zawadzka filed her amended complaint before she filed her notice of appeal. At the time Zawadzka filed the amended pleading, the trial court had jurisdiction to allow her to file an amended pleading that abandoned or withdrew the previous claims.\nZawadzka contends Brown Leasing, Inc. applies here nonetheless because the trial court\u2019s order giving her the right to appeal \u2014 the Rule 304(a) language \u2014 predated the amended complaint. Zawadzka, in essence, is contending her appeal was perfected when the trial court entered its order.\nShe is incorrect. The appeal is perfected when a timely notice of appeal is filed with the trial court (Robertson v. Winnebago County Forest Preserve District, 301 Ill. App. 3d 520, 528, 703 N.E.2d 606 (1998)), not when the trial court issues an appealable order. Because Zawadzka filed the amended complaint before she perfected her appeal, she has waived our review of the trial court\u2019s ruling.\nSecond, Zawadzka says she has taken \u201csteps to address any concerns this court may have about whether [she] adequately preserved her right to appeal these issues.\u201d On November 8, 2002, the trial court granted Zawadzka \u201cleave to file her motion for leave to file her third amended complaint at law.\u201d She did so the same day. To her motion, Zawadzka attached a copy of her proposed third amended complaint. In the proposed complaint, she reasserts the claims against the Catholic Bishop and Five Holy Martyrs based on respondeat superior. The record does not show whether the trial court granted Zawadzka\u2019s motion. Nor does the record show whether Zawadzka ever filed the third amended complaint.\nZawadzka waived this resuscitation argument by failing to cite relevant authority. Estate of Strocchia v. City of Chicago, 284 Ill. App. 3d 891, 901, 672 N.E.2d 919 (1996) (failure to cite to authority in support of an argument as required by Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) (188 Ill. 2d R. 341(e)(7)) waives the argument). In addition, once Zawadzka perfected her appeal pursuant to Rule 304(a), the trial court had no jurisdiction over any matter relating to claims that are the subject of this appeal. See Brown Leasing, Inc., 284 Ill. App. 3d at 1044.\nMotion to Dismiss\nZawadzka contends the trial court erred in dismissing her claims based on respondeat superior. The underlying issue \u2014 whether a priest\u2019s employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the sexual assault of a parishioner by the priest \u2014 is an interesting and sensitive issue, particularly given the recent, heightened attention to sexual misconduct by members of the clergy. Because Zawadzka waived our review of the merits of her appeal, we believe the posture of this case does not allow us to properly answer the questions posed by the trial court\u2019s dismissal. For this reason, we do not address the merits of Zawadzka\u2019s appeal.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we find Zawadzka waived (forfeited) our review of the merits of her appeal. We affirm the trial court\u2019s order granting the Catholic Bishop and Five Holy Martyrs\u2019 motion to dismiss.\nAffirmed.\nHOFFMAN and HALL, JJ., concur.\nThe pleading-over cases use the word \u201cwaiver.\u201d But waiver is the \u201cintentional relinquishment of a known right.\u201d Illinois Valley Electric Co-Operative, Inc. v. City of Princeton, 229 Ill. App. 3d 631, 638, 594 N.E.2d 347 (1992). It would be more accurate to use the word \u201cforfeiture\u201d since it is obvious that no actual waiver was intended by Zawadzka. We will, however, use the word \u201cwaiver\u201d to be consistent with the language in the decisions.\nZawadzka had filed a second amended complaint on October 30, 2002. It, too, did not allege respondeat superior, nor did it refer to earlier complaints.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WOLFSON" } ], "attorneys": [ "Winters, Enright, Salzetta & O\u2019Brien, L.L.C., of Chicago (John F. Winters, Jr., and Ruth M. Degnan, of counsel), for appellant.", "Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C., of Chicago (James A. Serritella, James C. Geoly, and Stephen R. Meinertzhagen, of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "LUCYNA ZAWADZKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CHICAGO, a Corporation, Indiv. and d/b/a Five Holy Martyrs Catholic Church, et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1\u201402\u20141600\nOpinion filed January 22, 2003.\nWinters, Enright, Salzetta & O\u2019Brien, L.L.C., of Chicago (John F. Winters, Jr., and Ruth M. Degnan, of counsel), for appellant.\nBurke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C., of Chicago (James A. Serritella, James C. Geoly, and Stephen R. Meinertzhagen, of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0066-01", "first_page_order": 84, "last_page_order": 89 }