Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Gonzalez v. Profile Sanding Equipment. Inc.

Gonzalez v. Profile Sanding Equipment. Inc.

Case Date: 08/16/2002
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-01-2812, 1-01-3500 cons. Rel

FIFTH DIVISION
August 16, 2002


Nos. 1-01-2812, 1-01-3500, consolidated


JAIME GONZALEZ, a/k/a Carlos Ruiz, 

                         Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

PROFILE SANDING EQUIPMENT, INC.,

                         Defendant-Appellant. 

JAIME GONZALEZ, a/k/a Carlos Ruiz, 

                         Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PROFILE SANDING EQUIPMENT, INC.,

                         Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 		Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County.

No. 97 L 3291

Honorable
Walter J. Kowalski,
Judge Presiding.

Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County.

No. 97 L 3291

Honorable
Thomas Quinn,
Judge Presiding.


JUSTICE GREIMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

This appeal involves the entry of a default judgment for $1.2 million in a personal injurylawsuit filed by the plaintiff, Jaime Gonzalez, against defendant, Profile Sanding & Equipment, Inc. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking damages for the loss of his dominant thumb, which allegedlyoccurred as a result of defendant's negligence in selling and manufacturing a piece of sandingequipment. The complaint was filed on March 19, 1997, and on January 30, 2001, a default judgmentwas entered against the defendant while the defendant was not represented by counsel. In attemptingto vacate this default judgment, the defendant filed a petition under section 2-1301 of the Illinois Codeof Civil Procedure (the Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1301 (West 2000)). Finding that it lacked jurisdiction,the trial court denied that petition. After that, the defendant filed a petition pursuant to section 2-1401of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2000)). After the parties submitted their respective pleadings,the trial court denied that petition as well. Defendant now appeals the court's denial of defendant'ssection 2-1401 petition in appellate court case number 1-01-2812.

Following judgment, the plaintiff initiated a supplementary proceeding pursuant to section 2-1402 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1402 (West 2000)) in the form of citations to discover the assets ofthe defendant. During the course of those proceedings, the plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to section2-1402 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1402 (West 2000)) for a turnover of assets. That motion requestedthat, to satisfy the underlying judgment, the trial court deliver to the plaintiff the asset of the potentialcause of action of the defendant against its attorneys based on the attorneys' alleged misconduct in theunderlying trial. That motion was denied by the trial court on August 22, 2001, and plaintiff nowappeals that decision in appellate court case number 1-01-3500. On April 2, 2002, this courtconsolidated the appeals, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On September 23, 1996, the plaintiff and his cousin were employed by Chicago Audio Group,Inc. (Chicago Audio), a company that manufactures speaker stands. According to the allegations inthe complaint, the defendant designed, manufactured, and sold to Chicago Audio a wood cutting andsanding machine known as a Profilematic. The Profilematic requires two employees to operate it. One of the employees, known as the "feeder," inserts wood into the sander while the second employee,known as the "unloader," is responsible for unloading the finished product from the Profilematic andplacing the materials on a cart. Plaintiff usually operated as the unloader while his cousin usuallyoperated as the feeder. At the time of the injury, however, plaintiff was feeding wood into themachine when his thumb became caught in the conveyor belt and was cut off.

The time line of events, as evidenced by the record, was as follows: