Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

March 19, 2024

Watchdogs and Co-Defendants prevail in Motions to Dismiss –

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On July 29, 2016

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]

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

12 Comments
  • Danni Smith
    Posted at 22:15h, 29 July

    when the dominoes beginning falling there is no stopping.

  • Joanna
    Posted at 00:03h, 30 July

    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.

  • Judy
    Posted at 08:23h, 30 July

    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.

  • jannie
    Posted at 10:21h, 30 July

    Great news!

  • Roger Kempa
    Posted at 08:49h, 01 August

    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?

  • Roger Kempa
    Posted at 08:50h, 01 August

    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?

  • Roger Kempa
    Posted at 08:52h, 01 August

    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.

  • Danni Smith
    Posted at 11:42h, 01 August

    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?

  • Jim Phelan
    Posted at 14:42h, 01 August

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

    • jmkraft
      Posted at 17:29h, 01 August

      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.

  • Bob Hazard
    Posted at 11:42h, 08 August

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

  • mark misiorowski
    Posted at 07:40h, 02 September

    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.

$