If you file a case but neglect to serve the complaint, your case can be dismissed. Here a defendant tried to raise this issue in an interlocutory appeal. The court rejected the interlocutory appeal.

On February 5, 2019, in a Rule 23 opinion, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District denied leave for Defendant Emily Galloway to file an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s denial of her motion to dismiss under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b). Shirley Runyon v. Emily Galloway, 2019 IL App(5^th) 180044-U.

Ms. Galloway’s counsel, in the motion to dismiss, argued that the matter should be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 103(b) because counsel for the Plaintiff Shirley Runyon failed to use reasonable diligence in obtaining service.  The matter, initially filed on August 28, 2008, sat dormant for over six years before service was finally obtained on December 21, 2016.

In concluding that the issue was not appealable under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308, the Court states,

Illinois Supreme Court rule 103(b) states that ‘[i]f the failure to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain service on a defendant occurs after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, the dismissal shall be with prejudice as to that defendant ***.’ Our supreme court has held that Rule 103(b) is an objective standard that was adopted to prevent delays in service of summons and to promote expeditious handling of suits by giving circuit courts the ability to dismiss a cause when service is not affected by reasonable diligence. Segal v. Sacco, 136 Ill. 2d 282, 286 (1990). Because the rule does not provide a specific time by which a defendant must be served, a court must consider the amount of time that has passed in relation to all the other factors and circumstances of each individual case. Case v. Galseburg Cottage Hospital, 227 Ill. 2d 207, 213 (2007); see also Segal, 136 Ill. 2d at 287 (when determining whether a plaintiff lacked reasonable diligence in achieving service, a court may consider seven factors)…In the instant case, [Defendant] has requested this court to review and answer certified questions which would require us to provide an answer that is dependent on the specific underlying facts of this case. As such, this court’s answer would be improper. (emphasis added).

Notably, in a lengthy dissenting opinion, Justice Moore argues that the court should have reframed the question on appeal to answer, as a matter of law, whether “there is a per se violation of the reasonable diligence requirement…where no attempts are made for six years following the filing of a complaint and issuance of an original summons.” For now, at least, no such bright line rule will exist.