College of DuPage » DuPage County » feature

Watchdogs and Co-Defendants prevail in Motions to Dismiss –

July 29, 2016   ·   12 Comments

image_pdfimage_print

DuPage Co. (ECWd) –

Today, DuPage County Judge Kleeman ruled on the standard 619 Motions to Dismiss the lawsuits brought by Carla Burkhart and Herricane Graphics against the Edgar County Watchdogs, Kirk Allen, Clair Ball, and Adam Andrzejewski.  The initial reporting on the lawsuit can be found in this article. 

The judge granted the Motions to Dismiss across the board on the standard 619 Motions to Dismiss and provided Plaintiff 35 days to file a new complaint should they choose to do so.   He denied the Citizen Participation Act motions to dismiss which would have awarded us and the other Defendants our costs and attorney fees.

Overall it was a great day for justice.

Below are the various filings in the case.  When we get the filings for Adam Andrzejewski we will include them below.

 

Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.
[wp_eStore_donate id=1]

By

Readers Comments (12)

  1. mark misiorowski says:

    Dear Sir/Madam:

    One of the earlier comments indicated that an amended complaint will be filed. I guess time will answer that question.

    In the meantime, I have the following questions:

    First, if an amended complaint is filed by plaintiffs, do you think the amended complaint will be dismissed on the basis that the 2012 contract clearly designates the Architect on Page One of the contract and then uses the term architect over 300 times in the body of the contract?

    Second, if an amended complaint is filed by plaintiffs, do you think the amended complaint will be dismissed on the basis that Addendum E to the 2012 contract is not signed, not initialed, and not dated and therefore ineffective?

    Third,if an amended complaint is filed, do you think plaintiffs’ amended complaint will be dismissed after the court is is made aware that the 2012 contract makes reference to an Architect proposal to Owner, dated the previous year on June 29, 2011?

    Fourth, if an amended complaint is filed, do you think plaintiffs’ amended suit will be dismissed on the basis that page 2 of the 2012 contract notes that “A/E Ground Rules” were made a part of the 2012 contract?

    Fifth, if an amended complaint is filed, do you think plaintiffs’ amended complaint will be dismissed on the basis that plaintiffs and COD entered into another contract, dated July 2014, where the 2014 contract again lists the name of the project architect and again uses the term architect in the body of the contract numerous times?

    I hope the Illinois Appellate Court grants your petition and grants you an award of attorney fees under the Citizen Participation Act. I also hope that the Appellate Court addresses some of the serious issues outlined above.

    Good Luck Edgar County Watchdogs.

     Reply
  2. Bob Hazard says:

    Keep up the good work dogs! When bullies start whining you know you’re on the right path.

     Reply
  3. Jim Phelan says:

    I just heard that there has been Amended Complaint is going to be filed. The Judge basically said that you guys defamed her.

     Reply
    • jmkraft says:

      like the article said, they have 35 days if they choose to refile. I never heard the judge say we defamed her, don’t know where you got that from.

       Reply
  4. Danni Smith says:

    Supreme Court Rule 137-that the cause of action be “well grounded in fact.” Suits are filed with signatures attesting that it is a sworn statement given under oath. The judges never award fees for these frivolous suits. My belief is that the judges are wired into the attorneys for everything from gifts for favorable decisions to campaign contributions. If the law was followed there would be a lot less suits, fewer lawyers, and fewer dollars for the judges. I think there is this unwritten agreement between the legal cartel, certainly in Illinois. If judges were required to write an opinion decision about WHY they do not award fees, I wonder how they would justify these decisions?

     Reply
  5. Roger Kempa says:

    Great news for the Edgar County Watchdogs, Kirk Allen, Clair Ball, and Adam Andrzejewski. Only disappointment is that the judge did not award costs and attorney fees to them.

     Reply
  6. Roger Kempa says:

    Great news for the Edgar County Watchdogs, Kirk Allen, Clair Ball, and Adam Andrzejewski. It is a bit disappointing that the judge did not award costs and attorney fees to them. I could be wrong, but judges never seem to do that?

     Reply
  7. Roger Kempa says:

    Great news for the Edgar County Watchdogs, Kirk Allen, Clair Ball, and Adam Andrzejewski. It is a bit disappointing that the judge did not award costs and attorney fees to them. I could be wrong, but judges never seem to do that. If I’m correct, my question is why?

     Reply
  8. jannie says:

    Great news!

     Reply
  9. Judy says:

    That is some of the best news I have heard recently. The Watchdogs rock and the breuder bunch, et. al. just don’t know what to do with you. Terrific.

     Reply
  10. Joanna says:

    I have reviewed these filings and find them interesting. In my opinion Ms. Burkhart indeed filed a meritless lawsuit to silence you. I feel that the CPA is toothless at this point which is disappointing. I wish you could have countersued Ms. Burkhart in some way so she would know what being sued feels like since she precipitated this.

     Reply
  11. Danni Smith says:

    when the dominoes beginning falling there is no stopping.

     Reply




Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.