legal sufficiency claim in Illinois

2022Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 578-79 , (2006). ¶ 14 In this case, the circuit court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss under both section 2-615 and section 2-619.

2021Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558, 579 (2006).

2022Doe v. Diocese of Dallas, 234 Ill. 2d 393, 396 (2009).

2015Doe v. Diocese of Dallas, 234 Ill. 2d 393, 396 (2009).

2016Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 305 (2008).

2016Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, 229 Ill. 2d 296, 305 (2008).

2023A section 2-619 motion “admits both the truth of the facts alleged in support of the -3- No. 1-22-1092 claim and the legal sufficiency of the claim, but it raises affirmative matters which it asserts defeat the claim.” (Emphases omitted.) Id. ¶ 10 Stachler argues that her complaint contained well-pled allegations and the trial court erred by drawing improper factual conclusions when it dismissed her case. 1 Specifically, she asserts that she stated viable claims under the Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act for the denial of reasonable accommodations and empl

1999A section 2 — 619 motion “admits both the truth of the facts alleged in support of the claim and the legal sufficiency of the claim, but it raises affirmative matters which it asserts defeat the claim.” (Emphasis omitted.) Barber-Colman Co. v. A&K Midwest Insulation Co., 236 Ill.

2026See Provenzale v. Forister, 318 Ill.

2025See Provenzale v. Forister, 318 Ill.

2024In any event, the standard of review is the same. -9- No. 1-22-1088 v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462, 467 (2008).

2024In any event, the standard of review is the same. -9- No. 1-22-1088 any subsequent actions between the same parties or their privies on the same cause of action.” Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462, 467 (2008).

2019See Gagnon v. Schickel, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, ¶ 17 (explaining that “[a] section 2-615 motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint” whereas a section 2-619 motion “does not attack the legal sufficiency of the claim but rather attacks the complaint by raising defenses or other affirmative matters *** which would defeat the plaintiff’s claims”).

2018See Gagnon v. Schickel , 2012 IL App (1st) 120645 , ¶ 17, 368 Ill.Dec. 240 , 983 N.E.2d 1044 (explaining that "[a] section 2-615 motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint" whereas a section 2-619 motion "does not attack the legal sufficiency of the claim but rather attacks the complaint by raising defenses or other affirmative matters * * * which would defeat the plaintiff's claims").

2015We remind plaintiff that “[a]ny doubts which may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant.” Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 392 (1984). -4- defendants argue that plaintiff’s misunderstanding of the meaning of the release is a unilateral mistake that does not void the release. ¶ 16 A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code admits the legal sufficiency of a claim but asserts affirmative matter that defeats the claim.

2014We remind plaintiff that "[a]ny doubts which may arise from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against the appellant." Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 392 (1984). -6- No. 1-13-3004 defendants argue that plaintiff's misunderstanding of the meaning of the release is a unilateral mistake that does not void the release. ¶ 16 A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code admits the legal sufficiency of a claim but asserts affirmative matter that defeats the claim.

2014See Kanerva v. Weems, 2014 IL 115811, ¶ 58 (courts avoid purely advisory comments as they conflict with traditional principles of judicial restraint). ¶ 20 A. Standard of Review ¶ 21 In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a claim under section 2-615, we determine whether the allegations of the complaint, construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and taking all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true, are sufficient to establish a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.

2014See Kanerva v. Weems, 2014 IL 115811, ¶ 58 (courts avoid purely advisory comments as they conflict with traditional principles of judicial restraint). ¶ 20 A. Standard of Review ¶ 21 In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a claim under section 2-615, we determine whether the allegations of the complaint, construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and taking all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true, are sufficient to establish a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.

2011See Sandholm, 405 Ill.App.3d at 846 , 347 Ill.Dec. 341 , 942 N.E.2d 544 .

2011See Sandholm, 405 Ill.App.3d at 846 , 347 Ill.Dec. 341 , 942 N.E.2d 544 .

2010King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill. 2d 1, 11-12 (2005).

2010King v. First Capital Financial Services Corp., 215 Ill. 2d 1, 11-12 (2005).

2025The facts the plaintiff has pleaded do not state a cause of action against me.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Winters v. Wangler, 386 Ill.

2025“Lack of standing is an ‘affirmative matter’ that is properly raised under section 2– 619(a)(9).” Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211, 220 (1999).

2025“If not, the motion must be granted, ‘regardless of how many conclusions the count may contain and regardless of whether or not they inform the defendant in a general way of the nature of the claim against him.’ ” Id. at 368- 69 (quoting Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407, 426 (1981)). ¶ 19 As noted above, a motion to dismiss under section 2-615(a) challenges the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claim, while a motion to dismiss under section 2-619(a) admits the legal sufficiency of the claim but raises certain defects or defenses outside of the pleading that defeat the claim.