Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
)
PAM’S ACADEMY OF DANCE/FORTE ARTS ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
CENTER, ) Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Grundy
) County, Illinois
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Case No. 16-LM-155
v. )
) Circuit Judge: Sheldon Sobel
)
CALLIE MARIK, ) Appeal from Order dated June 28, 2017
) Certified Questions granted November
Defendant-Appellant. ) 8, 2017
)
BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Kenneth J. Vanko
Emily L. Langhenry
Clingen Callow & McLean, LLC
2300 Cabot Drive, Suite 500
Lisle, Illinois 60532
(630) 871-2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
langhenry@ccmlawyer.com
i
Tyler Enterprises of Elwood, Inc. v. Shafer, 214 Ill. App. 3d 145 (3d Dist. 1991) .......................9
C. The strict-construction rule should have prevented the circuit court from
reading a firm durational limit into the restrictive covenants. ...............................9
Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. v. Ravitts, 166 Ill. App. 3d 168 (2d Dist. 1988) ...........................10
Jefco Laboratories, Inc. v. Carroo, 136 Ill. App. 3d 793 (1st Dist. 1985) ....................................10
Citadel Inv. Group, LLC v. Teza Techs., LLC, 398 Ill. App. 3d 724 (1st Dist. 2010) ................10
Marwaha v. Woodridge Clinic, S.C., 339 Ill. App. 3d 291 (2d Dist. 2003) ...............................10
Bloomington Urological Assocs., S.C. v. Scaglia, 292 Ill. App. 3d 793 (4th Dist. 1997) ...........10
D. This Court should apply the appropriate rules of construction to answer
the second certified question in the negative. ..........................................................10
III.Restrictive covenants of uncertain and unlimited duration are void and
unenforceable. ......................................................................................................................11
Prairie Rheumatology Assocs., S.C. v. Francis, 2014 IL App (3d) 140338 ................................11
Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, 2011 IL 111871 ..................................................11, 13
House of Vision, Inc. v. Hiyane, 37 Ill. 2d 32 (1967) .......................................................12, 14, 15
L&R Insurance Agency, Inc. v. McPhail, 92 Ill. App. 2d 107 (5th Dist. 1968) ..................12, 13
Liautaud v. Liautaud, 221 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................13
Unilog Content Solutions, LLC v. Thanx Media, Inc., No. 15 C 5899, 2016 WL 7212477
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2016) .........................................................................................................13
Cincinnati Tool Steel Co. v. Breed, 136 Ill. App. 3d 267 (2d Dist. 1985) ..................................13
Petrzilka v. Gorscak, 199 Ill. App. 3d 120 (2d Dist. 1990) ...................................................13, 14
Cambridge Eng’g, Inc. v. Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc., 378 Ill. App. 3d 437
(1st Dist. 2007)........................................................................................................................14
Lawrence & Allen, Inc. v. Cambridge Human Resource Group, Inc., 292 Ill. App.
3d 131 (2d Dist. 1997) ............................................................................................................15
Tradesman Int’l v. Black, 724 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2013) ......................................................15, 16
Center for Sight of Central Illinois I, S.C. v. Deranian, 305 Ill. App. 3d 909
(4th Dist. 1999) .......................................................................................................................15
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................17
Certificate of Compliance .........................................................................................................18
ii
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This action concerns claims brought by Pam’s Academy of Dance/Forte Arts Center
(“Pam’s Academy”) against a former employee, Callie Marik. Those claims arise under
C020-43). After Marik unsuccessfully sought to dismiss the First Amended Complaint,
she asked the circuit court to certify questions for interlocutory review concerning the
Agreement. (R. C079-123). The circuit court granted that motion, certifying both
questions Marik proposed. (A2-3; R. C155-56). Under Supreme Court Rule 308, Marik
filed her Application for Leave to Appeal in this Court, which was granted in an Order
dated January 10, 2018. All questions in this appeal are raised on the pleadings.
(A2-3; R. C155-56).
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
On June 28, 2017, the circuit court denied Marik’s Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss
Counts I and II of the First Amended Complaint. (A1; R. C078). The circuit court also
1
dismissed Count III with leave to replead, but Pam’s Academy did not do so. (A1; R.
C078). On August 8, 2017, Marik filed her Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal
2017, the circuit court granted that motion as to each proposed certified question. (A2-3;
R. C155-56).
Marik then filed her Application for Leave to Appeal Under Supreme Court Rule 308
on November 28, 2017. In an Order dated January 10, 2018, this Court allowed Marik’s
Rule 308 application, certified both questions Marik proposed, and entered a briefing
schedule. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Initial Complaint
On October 14, 2016, Pam’s Academy sued Marik, claiming she breached various
pleading, Pam’s Academy generally alleged that Marik violated the Agreement by: (a)
soliciting “existing clients and/or students” of Pam’s Academy, (b) soliciting and
communicating “with peers who are/were clients, students and/or parents for the
purpose of providing similar services” that Pam’s Academy did, (c) providing services
Marik’s facility was located within 25 miles of Pam’s Academy. (R. C001-2). Pam’s
2
Marik’s Motion to Dismiss and the First Amended Complaint
Marik responded on January 11, 2017 by filing a Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss. (R.
C009-18). Among other arguments, Marik contended that the restrictive covenants
contained in the Agreement lacked any temporal limit and were, therefore, void. (R.
C010-12). In response, Pam’s Academy filed a First Amended Complaint. (R. C020-43).
In that amendment, Pam’s Academy separated its original breach-of-contract claim into
Counts I and II and added a third cause of action for trade secrets misappropriation
under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, 765 ILCS 1065/1 et seq. (R. C023-27). The First
which had an effective date earlier than the version Pam’s Academy attached to the
initial Complaint. (R. C028). Aside from the date, though, the Agreement was identical
In the First Amended Complaint, Pam’s Academy alleged that it operates a dance
studio offering classes in ballet, tap, jazz, pointe, and tumbling. (R. C020). It claimed
that Marik became an employee in 2013 and “primarily taught ballet classes.” (R. C021).
After summarizing various provisions of the Agreement, Pam’s Academy alleged that
Marik resigned in June of 2016 and began a dance studio called Underground Allegro,
which offers ballet, jazz, and contemporary dance technique. (R. C021-22). Pam’s
Academy then claimed that this studio―Underground Allegro―was located 19.16 miles
from Channahon, Illinois, where Pam’s Academy maintains a facility. (R. C022). Finally,
Pam’s Academy offered several allegations “on information and belief” that Marik
3
contacted parents and students of Pam’s Academy and “encouraged them to enroll at
Though Pam’s Academy did not specify which covenants in the Agreement it felt
Marik had violated, the Agreement contains three separate post-termination restrictive
covenants that form the basis for this action. (R. C028). They are contained in
4
(R. C028).
Marik again moved to dismiss the entire action under Section 2-615. (R. C045-55). As
she did in her initial motion, Marik argued that the restrictive covenants in the
Agreement, which formed the predicate for Counts I and II, contained indefinite
durational limits. (R. C047-49). In particular, Marik argued that the covenants in
Paragraphs 3 and 4, which purport to last for “not less than” five and three years
respectively, lack a temporal limit and are unreasonable as a matter of law. (R. C048-50).
Marik further argued that Paragraph 7, a third and related post-termination covenant,
lacks any temporal limit at all. (R. C048). Marik advanced other arguments as to Counts
I and II, which addressed substantive overbreadth problems concerning the applicable
Opposing the Section 2-615 motion, Pam’s Academy disagreed with Marik’s
assertions that both Paragraphs 3 and 4 were indefinite and that they were
unreasonable restraints under Illinois law. (R. C060-65). Pam’s Academy did not
attempt to justify Paragraph 7, arguing it was a “redundant clause” that was “not an
On June 28, the circuit court denied Marik’s Section 2-615 motion as to Counts I and
II, finding the restrictive covenants last for periods of five and three years respectively.
(A1; R. C078). The court also struck, as overbroad, Paragraph 7 of the Agreement. (A1;
R. C078). Finally, the court dismissed Count III without prejudice and gave Pam’s
5
Academy until July 26, 2017 to file an amended claim for trade secrets
misappropriation. (A1; R. C078). Pam’s Academy did not do so, meaning only Counts I
On August 8, 2017, Marik filed her Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal
Questions Arising from Denial of Motion to Dismiss. (A2-3; R. C079-123). After full
briefing, the circuit court entered an Order on November 8 granting Marik’s motion on
each proposed certified question. (R. C155-56). This Court then allowed Marik’s
ARGUMENT
I. Standard of Review
This Court reviews de novo a certified question under Supreme Court Rule 308.
Barbara’s Sales, Inc. v. Intel Corp., 227 Ill. 2d 45, 57-58 (2007). The certified questions in
covenant, which is a question of law appropriate for de novo review. Reliable Fire
Equipment Co. v. Arredondo, 2011 IL 111871, ¶ 12; Mohanty v. St. John Heart Clinic, S.C.,
II. Generally accepted contract construction rules illustrate that restrictive covenants
lasting “not less than” a stated time period are indefinite.
6
(A2-3; R. C155-56). In its June 28, 2017 Order, the circuit court found that the restrictive
covenants in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Agreement contained a certain time limit. (A1;
R. C078). That is, the court ruled that the term “not less than” five and three years
meant five and three years. (A1; R. C078). The circuit court’s ruling represents a marked
applicable to disfavored restraints of trade. For the following reasons, this Court should
A. The circuit court’s interpretation of the durational limit runs counter to the
plain-meaning rule.
The first interpretive principle is the most basic of all. If a contract’s language is clear
and unambiguous, courts must adopt the agreement’s “plain, ordinary and popular
meaning.” Thompson v. Gordon, 241 Ill. 2d 428, 441 (2011). To that end, courts must
construe the meaning of a contract by looking at the words used; they cannot interpret
the agreement in a way that is contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of those
words. USG Interiors, Inc. v. Commercial and Architectural Products, Inc., 241 Ill. App. 3d
944, 948 (1st Dist. 1993) Courts, therefore, construe contracts as written―not as one
party later finds it would prefer it to have been written. Johnson v. Servicemaster
Industries, Inc., 254 Ill. App. 3d 353, 361 (1st Dist. 1992).
The commonly understood meaning of the phrase “not less than” qualifies, rather
than solidifies, the time period immediately following it. If a 5 year-old child
successfully bargains her parents for “not less than” ten minutes to finish playing, her
parents have exposed themselves to further haggling over when play time is actually
7
finished. Put another way, the “not less than” hedge provides wiggle room. Applied
here, the same phrase grants Pam’s Academy flexibility and discretion. Under a plain-
meaning interpretation, “not less than” five years could mean six, seven, or something
else. The three-year and five-year periods set forth in each restrictive covenant are
notional time limits only; they are malleable rather than concrete.
Whether Pam’s Academy intends to enforce any restraint beyond five or three years
is not the point. Nor does it matter what Pam’s Academy thought the covenant meant,
either before or during litigation. Servicemaster Industries, 254 Ill. App. 3d at 361. What
understand it. See Foxfield Realty, Inc. v. Kubala, 287 Ill. App. 3d 519, 523 (2d Dist. 1997)
and natural meaning”). And no commonly accepted construction of the phrase “not less
than” results in the view that the circuit court endorsed: that the phrase simply means
nothing at all. See Robinwood, Inc. v. Baker, 425 S.E.2d 353, 357 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)
(Birdsong, J., dissenting) (rejecting majority’s conclusion that term “not less than two
years” in employee’s restrictive covenant meant two years and stating that the
interpretation.”).
B. Eliminating the words “not less than” results in a contact laden with surplus
terminology.
Bolstering the plain-meaning rule is a well-known analogue. That is, courts presume
that words and phrases in a contract were not intended to be meaningless; courts
8
should, therefore, avoid interpretations that devolve contractual words or phrases into
mere surplasage. Berkeley Properties, Inc. v. Balcor Pension Investors, II, 227 Ill. App. 3d
construction. The June 28, 2017 Order makes it clear that the circuit court interpreted the
Agreement as if the phrase “not less than” were never inserted in either restrictive
covenant. (A1; R. C078). But the circuit court should have considered those words with
the remainder of the restrictive covenant’s language. Indeed, a central fulcrum of any
restrictive covenant is its durational limit. Tyler Enterprises of Elwood, Inc. v. Shafer, 214
Ill. App. 3d 145, 149 (3d Dist. 1991) (stating that a restrictive covenant is enforceable
“only if the time and territorial limitations are reasonably necessary to protect a
tangential terms when excising them from the Agreement; rather, it determined that an
indispensable enforceability tenet was filled with surplus terminology. That interpretive
C. The strict-construction rule should have prevented the circuit court from
reading a firm durational limit into the restrictive covenants.
The circuit court’s error in failing to apply the no-surplus rule then led to a further
Restrictive covenants are a unique subset of contracts. And they have particular
rules of construction that courts must consider when determining whether or how to
9
enforce them. To that end, employment-based restrictive covenants “have long been
disfavored by the courts.” Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. v. Ravitts, 166 Ill. App. 3d 168, 172
(2d Dist. 1988); Jefco Laboratories, Inc. v. Carroo, 136 Ill. App. 3d 793, 797 (1st Dist. 1985).
balance between the freedom to contract and the freedom to compete. Citadel Inv. Group,
LLC v. Teza Techs., LLC, 398 Ill. App. 3d 724, 734 (1st Dist. 2010). On that score, courts
resolve doubts against the restriction. Marwaha v. Woodridge Clinic, S.C., 339 Ill. App. 3d
291, 293 (2d Dist. 2003); Bloomington Urological Assocs., S.C. v. Scaglia, 292 Ill. App. 3d
In sustaining Pam’s Academy’s contract claims, the circuit court inverted these rules
of construction. That is to say, it granted Pam’s Academy the benefit of the doubt,
absolved it of drafting zeal, and construed the covenants in a manner that favored
upholding the restraint. Had it applied the correct interpretive rule, the circuit court
would have found that the restrictive covenants in Paragraphs 3 and 4 were indefinite
D. This Court should apply the appropriate rules of construction to answer the
second certified question in the negative.
result than the circuit court reached. Simply put, the phrase “not less than” a certain
time period does not mean a certain time period. That is, the restrictive covenants in
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Agreement were not for five and three years, but for
10
something indeterminate and singularly within Pam’s Academy’s discretion. This Court
By doing so, the Court now is better suited to assess the central tenet of Marik’s
III. Restrictive covenants of uncertain and unlimited duration are void and
unenforceable.
(A2-3; R. C155-56). The Third District has summarized the general rule: “Under Illinois
This principle stems from the Supreme Court of Illinois’ seminal non-compete case,
Reliable Fire Equipment Co. v. Arredondo. In that opinion, the Court reaffirmed the widely
Reliable Fire, 2011 IL 111871, at ¶ 17. Specifically, courts only enforce covenants not to
compete that are: (1) no greater than required for protection of the employer’s
legitimate business interest; (2) do not impose an undue hardship on the employee; and
11
Neither Prairie Rheumatology nor Reliable Fire had occasion to weigh in on
Agreement. But other Illinois courts have. And uniformly, they have concluded that
indefinite non-competes are invalid. Though none of them confronted the particular
“not less than” language that applies to Marik’s restrictions, the guiding principles are
just as applicable to this dispute and illustrate why this Court should answer the first
The logical starting point is the Supreme Court’s decision in House of Vision, Inc. v.
Hiyane, 37 Ill. 2d 32 (1967). In that case, the lower court had decreed that the ex-
employee should be restrained from rendering competitive services for a period of five
years, even though that duration appeared nowhere in the underlying covenant not to
compete. Id. at 35. The Supreme Court on direct appeal held that an employer could not
enforce a non-compete clause without any time restriction since it imposed “unrealistic
boundaries in time and space.” Id. at 39. It did not sanction any sort of modification
whereby the trial court could, on its own, inject an appropriate temporal limit into the
Just a year after House of Vision, the Appellate Court addressed a similar restrictive
covenant dispute, this time impacting an insurance salesman. The Fifth District in L&R
Insurance Agency, Inc. v. McPhail, 92 Ill. App. 2d 107 (5th Dist. 1968), relied on House of
Vision to find that a restrictive covenant with no durational limit was unenforceable. Id.
at 111-12. It reversed the circuit court’s judgment, which in effect created a time limit
(three years) not otherwise expressed in the underlying contract. Id. at 110, 115. And just
12
as in House of Vision, the Appellate Court found that the circuit court could not impose a
limitation on the restrictive covenant’s terms because it was “void and unenforceable.”
Id. at 113.
The Seventh Circuit, applying Illinois law, later addressed a durationally unlimited
non-compete clause in a dispute between the founder of Jimmy John’s restaurants and
his cousin. The case of Liautaud v. Liautaud, 221 F.3d 981 (7th Cir. 2000), involved an
unlimited agreement under which the cousin agreed not to expand any competing
sandwich shop business outside Madison, Wisconsin. Id. at 984. In affirming the district
court’s judgment, the Seventh Circuit found the non-compete was unnecessarily broad,
Concluding that such a perpetual non-compete also harmed the public by reducing
competition, the Seventh Circuit stated that Illinois courts “generally have refused to
enforce noncompetition agreements that do not limit the duration of the restriction.” Id.
at 988; accord Unilog Content Solutions, LLC v. Thanx Media, Inc., No. 15 C 5899, 2016 WL
7212477, at *2-3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 13, 2016) (granting motion to dismiss contract claim when
non-competition covenant had no durational limit); Cincinnati Tool Steel Co. v. Breed, 136
Ill. App. 3d 267, 276 (2d Dist. 1985) (concluding that non-disclosure agreement with no
The conclusion in Liautaud is both intuitive and consistent with the basic rule of
reason set forth in Reliable Fire. How can a restraint be “no greater than required for
protection of the employer’s legitimate business interest,” Reliable Fire, 2011 IL 111871,
at ¶ 17, if it lasts an indefinite period? See Petrzilka v. Gorscak, 199 Ill. App. 3d 120, 125
13
(2d Dist. 1990) (stating “noncompetition clauses should be limited in time so that the
The logical force behind each of the Illinois decisions just summarized and cited
competes, as the circuit court did here, shifts litigation risk to the party least able to
avoid it. Whether the lack of a temporal limit is unabashedly obvious as in House of
Vision or the product of head-scratching opacity as was the case here, the concerns over
Indeed, those concerns are so important that they are deeply rooted in public policy,
with courts concluding that extensive non-compete reformation—of the kind held
Mercury Partners 90 BI, Inc., 378 Ill. App. 3d 437, 456 (1st Dist. 2007). It is one thing to
On that score, the First District further stated in Cambridge Eng’g that excessively
overbroad agreements lead to a “severe chilling effect” that leaves employees who are
“unschooled in the law” simply twisting in the wind. Id. That is to say, not only are
employees unable to assess whether restrictive covenants are enforceable in the first
instance, but they also have no reliable means to assess whether and how courts will
pare back overbroad restraints during the course of a lawsuit. See House of Vision, 37 Ill.
14
App. 3d at 39 (noting that oppressively broad contracts “impose upon an employee the
preventing employees from pursuing their highest and best use in the labor pool and
weight of legal expense. See Lawrence & Allen, Inc. v. Cambridge Human Resource Group,
Inc., 292 Ill. App. 3d 131, 138 (2d Dist. 1997) (noting “hardship to employee” is factor to
operate as hiring and entrepreneurial deterrents, impacting a vast array of cases that
never get litigated. See Tradesman Int’l v. Black, 724 F.3d 1004, 1018 (7th Cir. 2013)
(Hamilton, J., concurring) (stating that “[i]n the many cases that will never get to court,
or where employees will be deterred even from trying to leave, the employer benefits
from the in terrorem effects of the oppressively and overly broad covenants.”).
optimally positioned to avoid drafting snafus. To be sure, it is the employer that knows
just what interest it is trying to protect. And it is the employer that knows how it should
go about protecting that interest. Being overzealous is no defense, certainly not when an
individual employee’s economic liberty is at stake and the public writ large stands to
courts time and again have stated (with good reason) that they “abhor.” Center for Sight
of Central Illinois I, S.C. v. Deranian, 305 Ill. App. 3d 909, 915 (4th Dist. 1999).
15
This case raises concerns that will crop up in a variety of fact patterns, even if the
sizes, with lawyers hardly wedded to a standard template. Today’s “not less than”
qualifier could be replaced in some future dispute with a similar durational hedge like
“at least.” Or employers could try to punt to the trial court and ask for enforcement of a
non-compete contract “to the fullest extent permitted by law,” comforted that the court
just might enable the employer to retreat safely during the lawsuit to a more legally
acceptable position. See Tradesman Int’l, 724 F.3d at 1018 (Hamilton, J., concurring). And
some employers even may try to enforce a contract that is naked in its attempt to
impose a perpetual restriction, just like that in House of Vision. Rough contractual
guideposts and abstract suggestions are not a proxy for certainty. Courts should
Employees like Marik should not have to guess at how long a non-compete lasts.
Neither they nor counsel with whom they consult should be put to the screws of
disaggregating malleable terms in the hope that a court will agree with them. Instead, it
is the employer who should assess the need for a non-compete clause and draft it
objectively, with a fair balance that recognizes the various rights at stake. Illinois law is
pointed firmly towards ensuring a sensible result: non-compete clauses require firm
and certain durational limits, not ones embedded with discretionary language.
The Court should answer the second certified question in the negative.
16
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Callie Marik respectfully requests that this Court answer
each certified question in the negative and remand to the circuit court with instructions
Respectfully submitted,
CALLIE MARIK
17
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief conforms to the requirements of Supreme Court Rules 341(a)
and (b). The length of this brief, excluding the pages containing the Rule 341(d) cover,
the Rule 341(h)(1) statement of points and authorities, the Rule 341(c) certificate of
compliance, the certificate of service, and those matters to be appended to the brief
Respectfully submitted,
CALLIE MARIK
Kenneth J. Vanko
Emily L. Langhenry
Clingen Callow & McLean, LLC
2300 Cabot Drive, Suite 500
Lisle, Illinois 60532
(630) 871-2600
vanko@ccmlawyer.com
langhenry@ccmlawyer.com
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
18
No. 3-17-0803
)
PAM’S ACADEMY OF DANCE/FORTE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
ARTS CENTER, ) Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Grundy
) County, Illinois
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Case No. 16-LM-155
v. )
) Circuit Judge: Sheldon Sobel
)
CALLIE MARIK, ) Appeal from Order dated June 28,
) 2017
Defendant-Appellant. ) Certified Question granted
) November 8, 2017
APPENDIX
ORDER
Interlocutory Appeal Questions from Denial of Motion to Dismiss, due notice having
been given and the Court being fully advised. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court hereby finds that the June 28,2017 Order involves questions of law
2. The Court further finds that an immediate appeal from the June 28,2017
3. Accordingly, the Court hereby identifies and certifies the following questions
"not less than" five and "not less than" three years contain an
Assocs., S.C. v. Francis, 2014IL App (3d) 140338, and Reliable Fire
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
No.3-17-0803
)
PAM’S ACADEMY OF DANCE/FORTE ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
ARTS CENTER, ) Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Grundy
) County, Illinois
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Case No. 16-LM-155
v. )
) Circuit Judge: Sheldon Sobel
)
CALLIE MARIK, ) Appeal from Order dated June 28,
) 2017
Defendant-Appellant. ) Certified Question granted
) November 8, 2017
A28
8. 6/14/17 Defendant’s Reply Memorandum of Law in C067-77
Support of Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss
(with Notice of Filing)
9. 6/28/17 June 28, 2017 Court Order C078
10. 8/8/17 Defendant’s Motion to Certify for C079-125
Interlocutory Appeal Questions Arising
from Denial of Motion to Dismiss, (with
Notice of Motion), Memorandum of Law in
Support of Motion to Certify for
Interlocutory Appeal Questions Arising
From Denial of Motion to Dismiss (with
Notice of Filing)
11. 8/23/17 Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s First C126-42
Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses
and Counterclaim (with Notice of Filing)
12. 9/26/17 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion C143-47
to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal
Questions Arising from Denial of Motion to
Dismiss
13. 9/26/17 Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s C148-49
Affirmative Defenses
14. 11/1/17 Defendant’s Reply Memorandum in C150-54
Support of Motion to Certify for
Interlocutory Appeal Questions Arising
from Denial of Motion to Dismiss (with
Notice of Filing)
15. 11/8/17 November 8, 2017 Court Order granting C155-56
Appeal
A29
E-FILED
Transaction ID: 3-17-0803
File Date: 2/14/2018 12:01 PM
Barbara Trumbo, Clerk of the Court
APPELLATE COURT 3RD DISTRICT
No. 3-17-0803
)
PAM’S ACADEMY OF DANCE/FORTE ARTS ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of the
CENTER, ) Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Grundy
) County, Illinois
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) Case No. 16-LM-155
v. )
) Circuit Judge: Sheldon Sobel
)
CALLIE MARIK, ) Appeal from Order dated June 28, 2017
) Certified Question granted November
Defendant-Appellant. ) 8, 2017
)
NOTICE OF FILING
Please take notice that on February 14, 2018 we electronically filed with the Clerk
of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third Judicial District the following:
1. Brief of Defendant-Appellant
True and correct copies of which are attached hereto and served upon you.
CALLIE MARIK
{00395268.DOCX /v. 1 }
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby states that she served the referenced documents to the
parties listed in the attached service list via e-mail and regular mail by depositing the
same in the mail chute located in Lisle, IL on or before 5:00 p.m. this 14th day of February,
2018.
{00395268.DOCX /v. 1 }