McHenry Co. (ECWd) -
We reported in this article that the Algonquin Township Clerk, Karen Lukasik, counter-complaint was vacated and she was given until Sep 20th to file another amended counter-complaint that would have to contain an actual cause of action and must demonstrate Standing, or authority to litigate.
The attorney for Lukasik, David McArdle, has not filed an amended counter-complaint which means Lukasik's attempt to enrich herself through this litigation has come to an end.
However, no such amended counter-complaint has stopped McArdle from more billable hours in a case he now acknowledges his client had no standing to sue in the first place.
Even though the case is vacated, McArdle has now filed a Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings.
Lukasik's counter-complaint was vacated which means she has no pleadings before the court. That being the case, we are not sure how judgment on those pleadings could ever happen. If he is pointing to the pleadings of the Road District, there is already a motion for a judgment on those pleadings by the Road District.
Reading his motion is rather comical. While he has billed for his work on this case since before even being appointed by the Board, he now uses the very township statute responsible for losing his case as a reason for the Clerk to now be dismissed from the Road District's case against her.
McArdle played the typical word game in his motion and left out a key factor in his motion. He now claims that since Hanlon argued Lukasik has no statutory standing to sue, she cant be sued.
From the motion:
"31. 60 ILCS 1/95-10 provides, "In all suits and proceedings, the township shall sue and be sued by its name ... "
"32. Plaintiff has ignored the very statute he argues."
"33. Plaintiffs 4th Amended Complaint names Karen Lukasik in her capacity as Algonquin Township Clerk and pleads, "as the elected Algonquin Township Clerk" she is a "necessary party to this litigation." See Exhibit A, para. 3."
What the Plaintiffs 4th Amended Complaint paragraph 3 actually says:
"3. Defendant, KAREN LUKASIK ("LUKASIK"), resides in Algonquin Township, Illinois, and is the duly elected Clerk of Algonquin Township. As the elected Algonquin Township Clerk, LUKASIK is the defacto clerk of the Road District. LUKASIK is a necessary party to this litigation."
Why did McArdle selectively quote from the paragraph?
While McArdle prays the court will dismiss Lukasik, in her official Township Clerk capacity from this case, he was silent on her being dismissed from the case in her personal capacity and makes no reference to the fact she is the defacto clerk of the Road District, which appears to make her a necessary party to this litigation. We say appears because to date the courts have not vacated the complaint in question brought by the Road District.
All legal arguments aside, the fact McArdle is pointing to the very statute responsible for the loss of his case as the reason his client should be dismissed is yet another example of a failed system of checks and balances. McArdle has billed for his work for over two years on a case that he now confirms his client has no standing by statute. He should refund all fees for bringing a case in which his client had no standing.
Even more ironic is yet another filing. McArdle has filed a MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RELATING TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS DATED AUGUST 7, 2019 AND TO REVISE COURT ORDER.
Ironic because in this motion he points to his vacated counter-complaint as the reason to support his motion yet ignores that fact in his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
It appears the Attorney for the Road District, Rob Hanlon, recognized the conflicting positions as well as is confirmed in his communication with McArdle.
As you can imagine I am a bit confused with the duplicity positions you have asserted. On one hand, you contend that nothing is pending involving Karen Lukasik and you actually embrace my argument that she has no power to sue in her official capacity, and you did not file an Amended Complaint. On the other hand, you demand discovery on behalf of Lukaik in a case you claim is over as it relates to Mrs Lukasik? Which is it, are you also withdrawing all of your written discovery? (see below if you forgot or if you intend to change your position by the time we get back to court.)
In the history of civil procedure, you may be the first attorney to contend that because the court dismissed your counter-complaint that you are entitled to judgment on the pleadings. I would suggest to you that your motion for judgment on the pleadings is moot and that you have violated Rule 137 by filing the motion under 2-615(e). By requiring the Road District to respond to that motion, you are forcing it to suffer costs of responding to your frivilous motion. I will be seeking the appropriate sanction absent receiving a motion withdrawing your Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings."
We will update on the McArdle rope-a-dope after tomorrows hearing.