McHenry Co. (ECWd) –
Algonquin Township Clerk Karen Lukasik hired David McArdle to represent her. McArdle recently lost his amended counter-complaint which we briefly covered in this article.
Reading McArdle’s “Response to Counter-Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings“, numerous points of interest were identified but one in particular worthy of a dedicated article was this statement by McArdle.
“The Amended Complaint complies with all aspects of 735 ILCS 5/2-701, Illinois law, and states a detailed cause of action“
During our last eight years of reading statutes, case law, and researching hundreds of cases, we noticed what appears to be a pattern to most losing cases. When a court filing telegraphs matters as factual rather than letting the facts speak for themselves, it points to a weakness in their case. Another indicator is citing state statutes and case law that is not on point with the matter at hand but close. As it relates to McArdles losing response, the results confirm what we have experienced as his response was filled with all the key losing identifiers.
Let’s look at three of his claims.
- The Amended Complaint complies with all aspects of 735 ILCS 5/2-701
According to Beahringer, 204 Ill. 2d at 372-73, “The declaratory judgment procedure allows the court to take hold of a controversy one step sooner than normally — that is, after the dispute has arisen, but before steps are taken which give rise to claims for damages or other relief. The parties to the dispute can then learn the consequences of their action before acting.”
The Algonquin Township Road District attorney Rob Hanlon provided a thorough reply on the matter that included the above case law and summarized it quite well.
“Here, Lukasik claims that Lutzow has acted and attributes Lutzow’s action to both Gasser and Lutzow in the context of unfettered access. See AMCC ¶30 establishing that Lutzow controls the FOB system, not Gasser. Thus, the use of the Declaratory Judgment Act is not appropriate because Lukasik is complaining about positions already taken and not for an interpretation of how to proceed. She said it, she is locked out by Lutzow.”
The facts laid out in the file make it clear, McArdle’s Respons did not comply with 735 ILCS 5/2-701 as claimed.
- The Amended Complaint complies with all aspects of Illinois law
We don’t have to go far on this one. The amended complaint does not comply with all aspects of Illinois law because Illinois law requires any amendments to verified complaints to also be verified. When I read McArdle’s response I confirmed with Hanlon that the Amended complaint in question was not verified.
“If any pleading is so verified, every subsequent pleading must also be verified, unless verification is excused by the court.” – 735 ILCS 5/2-605
McArdle’s amended complaint was not verified nor was verification excused by the court. That being the case, the second part of McArdle’s statement of facts is not true.
- “The Amended Complaint states a detailed cause of action”
Not according to the court.
In fact, the amended complaint came as a result of the original complaint not stating a cause of action. McArdle is two for two on the cause of action.
Three for three on making false assertions before the court.
You can read McArdle’s filing at this link and Hanlon’s reply at this link.
CindyPosted at 05:45h, 03 September
Hocus pocus out of focus.
RogerPosted at 10:35h, 03 September
I’m assuming the “Magic 8 Ball” returned a response of “Outlook Good”.