section 2-619 dismissal of a complaint in Illinois

2021A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint and asserts that an affirmative matter or defense outside the complaint bars or defeats the clause of action. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2018); Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 367 (2003).

2021A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint and asserts that an affirmative matter or defense outside the complaint bars or defeats the cause of action. 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2018); Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 367 (2003).

2021See Doyle, 186 Ill. 2d at 109 (“The -6- trial court dismissed the amended complaint under section 2-619(a)(9) of Code of Civil Procedure, which permits the dismissal of an action when ‘the claim asserted *** is barred by other affirmative matter avoiding the legal effect of or defeating the claim.’ ” (quoting 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 1996))); Beetle, 326 Ill. App. 3d at 531 (“The purpose of a motion to dismiss under section 2-619 is to dispose of issues of law and easily proved issues of fact.”). ¶ 19 Our review of the record reveals that the dismissal was plainly for failure to state a cl

2013From these two court orders, Dr. Ahmad and Marion Eye Centers appeal. ¶6 LAW AND ANALYSIS ¶7 On appeal from a trial court’s involuntary dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2010)), we must determine “whether the existence of a genuine issue of material fact should have precluded the -3- dismissal or, absent such an issue of fact, whether dismissal is proper as a matter of law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, 186 Ill. 2d 104, 109-10 , 708 N.E.2d 1140, 1144 (1999).

2008Contrary to the District's assertion, Smith's purported concession of the District's discretionary action in firing him by his failure to respond to Trigg's affidavit does not constitute an adequate basis for the dismissal of Smith's complaint under section 2-619(a)(9). "[S]ection 2-619(a)(9) affords a `means of obtaining * * * a summary disposition of issues of law or of easily proved issues of fact, with a reservation of jury trial as to disputed questions of fact.' [Citations.]" Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill.2d 112, 115 , 189 Ill.Dec. 31 , 619 N.E.2d 732 (1993).

2008Contrary to the District's assertion, Smith's purported concession of the District's discretionary action in firing him by his failure to respond to Trigg's affidavit does not constitute an adequate basis for the dismissal of Smith's complaint under section 2-619(a)(9). "[S]ection 2-619(a)(9) affords a `means of obtaining * * * a summary disposition of issues of law or of easily proved issues of fact, with a reservation of jury trial as to disputed questions of fact.' [Citations.]" Kedzie & 103rd Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Hodge, 156 Ill.2d 112, 115 , 189 Ill.Dec. 31 , 619 N.E.2d 732 (1993).

2026Rulings on section 2-619 motions “present a question of law, and we review rulings thereon de novo.” Id. ¶ 25 The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(5) of the Code, finding it was time barred.

2023“A motion to dismiss, pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code, admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiffs’ claim.” DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49, 59 (2006); Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 579 (2006). “[T]he movant is essentially saying ‘ “Yes, the complaint was legally sufficient, but an affirmative matter exists that defeats the claim.” ’ ” Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC, 2013 IL App (4th) 120139, ¶ 31 (quoting Winters v. Wangler, 386 Ill

2025Porter, 227 Ill. 2d at 352 . ¶ 20 Because dismissing a complaint under section 2-619 is a means of summarily disposing of issues of law or easily proved issues of fact, any disputed questions of fact preclude dismissal and are reserved for trial.

2019Porter v. Decatur Memorial Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 343, 352 (2008).

2026“We review the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) de novo.” Smith v. Waukegan Park District, 231 Ill. 2d 111 , 115 (2008) (citing Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211, 220 (1999)). ¶ 14 “The doctrine of standing is designed to preclude persons who have no interest in a controversy from bringing suit.” Glisson, 188 Ill. 2d at 221 .

2024Smith, 231 Ill. 2d at 115 . ¶ 18 In this case, the Cazaubons claim title to the disputed property by adverse possession.

2026“We review the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) de novo.” Smith v. Waukegan Park District, 231 Ill. 2d 111 , 115 (2008) (citing Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211, 220 (1999)). ¶ 14 “The doctrine of standing is designed to preclude persons who have no interest in a controversy from bringing suit.” Glisson, 188 Ill. 2d at 221 .

2026“We review the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) de novo.” Smith v. Waukegan Park District, 231 Ill. 2d 111 , 115 (2008) (citing Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211, 220 (1999)). ¶ 14 “The doctrine of standing is designed to preclude persons who have no interest in a controversy from bringing suit.” Glisson, 188 Ill. 2d at 221 .

2023She maintains that she spoke with Lamb “right after” receiving the January 5, 2021, letter, and that he “mentioned that [she] still had time to sue the company (2/19/21 through 5/19/21).” She further asserts that “[i]t was impossible to calculate [the] right date of filing case in court.” ¶ 13 A motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code “admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint, but asserts affirmative matter outside the complaint that defeats the cause of action.” Kean v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 235 Ill. 2d 351, 361 (2009).

2012Kean v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 235 Ill. 2d 351, 361 (2009). ¶ 15 The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to section 2-619 because it determined that CTLT lacked standing to bring the claim.

2016Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469, 487 (1994). ¶ 13 We review de novo a circuit court’s dismissal of a complaint under section 2-619.

2006When the trial court dismisses the complaint under section 2-619, "the question on appeal is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469, 494 (1994).

2020Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248, 254 (2004).

2019See Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248, 261 (2004) (we can affirm “on any basis present in the record”); In re Marriage of Gary, 384 Ill. App. 3d 979, 987 (2008) (“we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, regardless of whether the trial court based its decision on the proper ground”). ¶ 20 Additionally, each defendant also filed a motion to dismiss the amended fifth amended complaint pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code.

2023“A motion to dismiss, pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code, admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiffs’ claim.” DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49, 59 (2006); Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 579 (2006). “[T]he movant is essentially saying ‘ “Yes, the complaint was legally sufficient, but an affirmative matter exists that defeats the claim.” ’ ” Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC, 2013 IL App (4th) 120139, ¶ 31 (quoting Winters v. Wangler, 386 Ill

2021Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 579 (2006). ¶ 14 In granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the trial court found that Coe’s action was barred by the statute of limitations.

2026Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Illinois-Missouri Metropolitan District, 238 Ill. 2d 262, 267 (2010). ¶ 10 “A section 2-619 motion to dismiss admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim, but asserts affirmative matter that defeats the claim.” Id.

2026Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Illinois-Missouri Metropolitan District, 238 Ill. 2d 262, 267 (2010). ¶ 10 “A section 2-619 motion to dismiss admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim, but asserts affirmative matter that defeats the claim.” Id.

2015"Ordinarily a plaintiff whose complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action can complain of a judgment being entered in bar of action without leave to replead only if it seeks and is denied leave to replead. [Citation.]" Eversole v. Wasson, 80 Ill.

2015"Ordinarily a plaintiff whose complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action can complain of a judgment being entered in bar of action without leave to replead only if it seeks and is denied leave to replead. [Citation.]" Eversole v. Wasson, 80 Ill.

2014Brennan v. Kadner, 351 Ill.

2014Brennan v. Kadner, 351 Ill.

2024Czarobski v. Lata, 227 Ill. 2d 364, 369 (2008).

2012Although this court’s jurisdiction is not challenged by either party, we note that because plaintiff elected not to amend the dismissed counts against defendant and realleged them only for the purposes of appeal, the dismissal order of May 20, 2010, now stands as a final appealable order in that regard. ¶ 13 A motion to dismiss under section 2-619 of the Code “admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim but asserts [an] ‘affirmative matter’ outside of the pleading that defeats the claim.” Czarobski v. Lata, 227 Ill. 2d 364, 369 (2008).

2026“A motion to dismiss under section 2-619 admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, but asserts that the claim asserted against the defendant is barred by some affirmative matter which avoids the legal effect of or defeats the claim.” In re Estate of Boyar, 2013 IL 113655, ¶ 27 .

2026In re Estate of Boyar, 2013 IL 113655, ¶ 27 (A section 2-619 dismissal presents a question of law that is reviewed de novo).

2023“A motion to dismiss, pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code, admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiffs’ claim.” DeLuna v. Burciaga, 223 Ill. 2d 49, 59 (2006); Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 579 (2006). “[T]he movant is essentially saying ‘ “Yes, the complaint was legally sufficient, but an affirmative matter exists that defeats the claim.” ’ ” Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC, 2013 IL App (4th) 120139, ¶ 31 (quoting Winters v. Wangler, 386 Ill

2020For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶ 25 A. Standard of Review ¶ 26 A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016)) “admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint, admits all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom, and asserts an affirmative matter outside the complaint bars or defeats the cause of action.” Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enterprise, LLC, 2013 IL App (4th) 120139, ¶ 31 , 988 N.E.2d 984 .

2026“Standing in Illinois requires only that the plaintiff demonstrate ‘some injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest.’ ” Olson v. Ferrara Candy Co., 2025 IL App (1st) 241126, ¶ 21 (quoting Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462, 492 (1988)).

2015The court explained that it had reviewed all the cases cited by the parties and found that Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462 (1988), controlled the issue of standing and required the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.

2017Section 2-619 Dismissal ¶ 19 The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) which provides for dismissal because "the action was not commenced within the time limited by law." 735 ILCS 5/2­ 619(a)(5) (West 2014). ¶ 20 "A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiff's claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Trzop v. Hudson, 2015 IL App (1st) 150419, ¶ 63 .

2017Section 2-619 Dismissal ¶ 19 The trial court dismissed the complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(5) of the Code which provides for dismissal because “the action was not commenced within the time limited by law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) (West 2014). ¶ 20 “A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiff’s claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Trzop v. Hudson, 2015 IL App (1st) 150419, ¶ 63 .

2012A section 2-619 motion for involuntary dismissal “admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint, but asserts an affirmative defense or other matter that avoids or defeats the plaintiff’s claim.” Barber v. American Airlines, Inc., 241 Ill. 2d 450, 455 (2011).

2011Barber, 241 Ill.2d at 453 , 350 Ill.Dec. 535 , 948 N.E.2d 1042 . ¶ 14 The circuit court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the complaint on mootness grounds.

2025Goral, 2014 IL App (1st) 133236, ¶ 31 .

2021See also Goral v. Kulys, 2014 IL App (1st) 133236, ¶ 23 (“The trial court in this case granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to section 2-619.

2023Wallace v. Smyth, 203 Ill. 2d 441, 447 , (2002). ¶ 29 Wagner’s first contention on appeal is that dismissal under section 2-619 was improper because the District’s motion to dismiss attempted to negate the essential factual allegations of his complaint.

2022Wallace v. Smyth, 203 Ill. 2d 441, 447 (2002). ¶ 23 The issue of whether the plaintiff had standing under the Act to seek the removal of Granholm and Salamone as directors of Aurora Downtown requires us to interpret that statute.