{
  "id": 7329001,
  "name": "PETER E. SIAKPERE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Siakpere v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "2007-06-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201406\u20141016",
  "first_page": "1079",
  "last_page": "1082",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "374 Ill. App. 3d 1079"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "357 Ill. App. 3d 749",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        4135214
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "760"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/357/0749-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 Ill. App. 3d 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3833283
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "525-26"
        },
        {
          "page": "525-26"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/346/0523-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 Ill. App. 3d 1097",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        4267296
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1104"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/368/1097-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 5632,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.803,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1067037086466524e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5697048360734545
    },
    "sha256": "c483a9430697238a3b9a040fc890786cec3711ab8dd43d5d4861e856d74f2bdf",
    "simhash": "1:0bbe5fbe06c8a817",
    "word_count": 908
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:59.295026+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "GALLAGHER and O\u2019MARA FROSSARD, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PETER E. SIAKPERE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE O\u2019BRIEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs, Peter E. Siakpere and 3991 Transport Co., Inc., appeal pro se from an order of the circuit court granting defendant City of Chicago\u2019s motion to dismiss plaintiffs\u2019 complaint. On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the circuit court improperly relied on the Code of Civil Procedure in dismissing the complaint for administrative review.\nPeter E. Siakpere is the president of 3991 Transport Co., Inc. (Transport), which is a registered Illinois corporation that holds a license to operate a taxicab in Chicago. Transport was cited for violating Rule 25(c) of the Rules and Regulations for Public Passenger Vehicle License Holders by failing to have the required equipment enabling taxicabs to accept credit cards. See Chicago Municipal Code \u00a79 \u2014 112\u2014260 (1999). A hearing was held at the Department of Administrative Hearings, and on October 5, 2005, administrative law officer Dennis Guest issued a final administrative decision finding Transport hable and ordering Transport to pay a fine of $250 plus $25 in court costs.\nOn November 7, 2005, Siakpere filed a pro se complaint on behalf of himself and Transport for administrative review in the circuit court against the City of Chicago (the City). On January 23, 2005, the City filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, alleging that Transport, as a corporation, must be represented by counsel in legal proceedings and Siakpere was not a licensed attorney. See 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(1) (West 2004). Furthermore, the City argued that Transport would be time-barred from filing a new complaint with the assistance of counsel for administrative review because the jurisdictional 35-day limit had already passed. See 735 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 103 (West 2004). On February 10, 2006, the circuit court granted the City\u2019s motion to dismiss with prejudice.\nOn February 21, Siakpere filed a motion for reconsideration, which the circuit court denied on March 3, 2006.\nOn appeal, plaintiffs now contend that the circuit court\u2019s order dismissing the complaint filed by Siakpere pursuant to section 2 \u2014 619(a)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(1) (West 2004)) was improper.\nWe review the circuit court\u2019s grant of a motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Village of Roselle v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 368 Ill. App. 3d 1097, 1104 (2006). Illinois law provides that a corporation must appear by counsel in legal proceedings and that any action filed without an attorney is null and void ab initio. Adair Architects, Inc. v. Bruggeman, 346 Ill. App. 3d 523, 525-26 (2004). A complaint to review a final administrative decision must be filed within 35 days from the date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed is served upon the party affected by the decision. 735 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 103 (West 2004). Furthermore, the requirement that the complaint be filed within the 35-day period specified in section 3 \u2014 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 103 (West 2004)) is jurisdictional. Barry v. Retirement Board of the Firemen\u2019s Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago, 357 Ill. App. 3d 749, 760 (2005). Section 2 \u2014 619(a)(1) allows an involuntary dismissal of a cause of action based on the trial court\u2019s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619(a)(1) (West 2004).\nHere, the City brought an administrative action against Transport, the corporation that held the taxicab license, for violating a municipal ordinance requiring taxicabs to be equipped with a taximeter or electronic equipment capable of accepting credit cards. After the administrative hearing ruling against Transport, Siakpere attempted to file a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court on behalf of Transport. However, Siakpere is not a licensed attorney, nor did any attorney appear on behalf of Transport. Therefore, the complaint filed was null and void ab initio and was properly dismissed. See Adair, 346 Ill. App. 3d at 525-26.\nFurthermore, the circuit court properly dismissed plaintiffs\u2019 complaint with prejudice on February 10, 2006. Although the record does not provide the exact date Transport was served with the administrative decision, Siakpere attempted to file a complaint for administrative review on November 7, 2005, so it could be no later than that date. Any new complaint filed by plaintiffs after the circuit court\u2019s ruling would have been well past the 35-day limitation for filing and time-barred. See 735 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 103 (West 2004). Accordingly, we find that the dismissal with prejudice was proper.\nPlaintiffs argue that section 2 \u2014 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 619 (West 2004)) does not apply when a matter is before a court on administrative review. However, the Code of Civil Procedure applies to cases on administrative review unless otherwise provided for (735 ILCS 5/1 \u2014 108(a) (West 2004)), and we find nothing in the Administrative Review Law that precludes the application of section 2 \u2014 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a matter before a court on administrative review.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGALLAGHER and O\u2019MARA FROSSARD, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE O\u2019BRIEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Peter E. Siakpere, of Mt. Prospect, appellant pro se.",
      "Mara S. Georges, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Bernia Ruth Solomon, Myriam Zreczny Kasper, and Emily Paster, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PETER E. SIAKPERE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (5th Division)\nNo. 1\u201406\u20141016\nOpinion filed June 29, 2007.\nPeter E. Siakpere, of Mt. Prospect, appellant pro se.\nMara S. Georges, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Bernia Ruth Solomon, Myriam Zreczny Kasper, and Emily Paster, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "1079-01",
  "first_page_order": 1097,
  "last_page_order": 1100
}