Illinois is a fact-pleading state, which generally means that the complaint must lay out the factual details of what happened between the two parties. By forcing the plaintiff to plead facts, the courts weed out some causes of action. The question arises often: how many attempts does the plaintiff get to state a claim?

In Masada v. Ciccone, 2016 IL App (1st) 152470-U, the Appellate Court reversed a decision of the trial court to dismiss a case. The reason was that the trial court should have accepted plaintiff’s first amended complaint which cured the defects in the pleading. The case featured ugly allegations that the defendants (who together with plaintiffs owned units in a condominium) destroyed religious symbols and subjected the plaintiffs to abuse and harassment. Plaintiff sought to plead a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed the claim finding that the complaint did not plead enough facts. Plaintiffs then sought reconsideration and tendered a new proposed second amended complaint. The court denied leave to file the proposed second amended complaint and denied the motion to reconsider.

The appellate court reversed. It held that the court abused its discretion in denying leave to file the second amended complaint because the proposed complaint cured the problems with the first amended complaint because it included detailed factual allegations.

The Appellate Court reversed and reinstated the case. Unfortunately, the Appellate Court decided not to publish the opinion, even though it should have been.

There is one more issue in the opinion that is worth discussing. The defendants argued on appeal that the case should be affirmed because plaintiff did not hire a court reporter and transcribe the hearing on the motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Court disagreed with this analysis. “We need not address Ciccone’s arguments regarding the March 10, 2015, hearing and order because that order is not the subject of this appeal. It was not mentioned in plaintiffs’ notice of appeal or substantive arguments of their brief. Further, we do not find a lack of the July 15, 2015, hearing transcript, bystanders report, or agreed statement of facts to be fatal to our review regarding the sufficiency of the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, as our review is de novo. See Gonnella Baking Co. v. Clara’s Pasta di Casa, Ltd. 337 Ill. App. 3d 385, 388 (2003).” Because the court reviews a decision to dismiss a complaint de novo, there is no requirement that appellant include the transcript in the record.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.