Find Legal Information

SECOND DIVISION
December 9, 2003

PRESIDING JUSTICE WOLFSON delivered the opinion of thecourt:

Plaintiff Michael Gunther appeals from an order of the trialcourt dismissing his complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) ofthe Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9)(West 2002)), for failing to serve summons on defendant IllinoisDepartment of Transportation (IDOT).

IDOT filed a petition to discharge Gunther from his positionas a highway maintainer. On September 27, 2001, following ahearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a writtenopinion recommending that Gunther's discharge be rescinded andGunther be restored to his employment. On October 11, 2001,defendant Illinois Civil Service Commission (Commission) declinedto adopt the ALJ's recommendation and upheld Gunther's discharge.

On November 15, 2001, Gunther filed a complaint foradministrative review in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Inthe attached summons, he listed the defendants, including IDOT,in the caption. To the right of the caption, he noted, "PleaseServe Defendants at: See Attached Service List Below." The"Certificate of Mailing" section at the bottom of the summonsform listed the names and addresses of the Illinois AttorneyGeneral, the Commission, and the four individual members of theCommission. Neither IDOT nor IDOT's address was listed. Guntherdid not file an affidavit designating the addresses ofdefendants. The clerk served summonses on the parties listed inthe certificate of mailing. IDOT was never served with summons.

On December 18, 2001, IDOT filed an appearance and a motionto dismiss Gunther's complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9),contending summons was not issued within the requisite timeperiod. On April 15, 2002, the trial court granted IDOT's motionand dismissed Gunther's complaint with prejudice. The courtdenied Gunther's motion for reconsideration.

DECISION

Section 3-102 of the Administrative Review Law (the Act)provides a party shall be barred from obtaining judicial reviewof an administrative decision unless review is sought within thetime and in the manner provided. 735 ILCS 5/3-102 (West 2002). Section 3-105 provides that summons must be issued on theadministrative agency and on each of the other defendants. 735ILCS 5/3-105 (West 2002).

Under section 3-103 of the Act, an affected party must filea complaint and issue summons within 35 days from the date that acopy of the final administrative decision was served on theparty. 735 ILCS 5/3-103 (West 2002).

The 35-day period for issuance of summons by the clerk ofthe court is mandatory, not jurisdictional. Burns v. Departmentof Employment Security, 342 Ill. App. 3d 780, 786-87, 795 N.E.2d972 (2003). Nevertheless, the procedures for review must bestrictly followed, because the Act is a departure from commonlaw. Lockett v. Chicago Police Board, 133 Ill. 2d 349, 353, 549N.E.2d 1266 (1990). Absent a good faith effort on the part ofthe plaintiff to name and serve a necessary party as required bythe Administrative Review Act, dismissal of the complaint forreview is required. Lockett, 133 Ill. 2d at 355; Carver v. Nall,186 Ill. 2d 554, 559-60, 714 N.E.2d 486 (1999). We review denovo a dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2-619. Carver, 186 Ill. 2d at 557.

A review of the record shows that Gunther did not strictlyadhere to the procedures set forth in the Act. Gunther correctlynamed all the necessary defendants in his complaint and filed thecomplaint within the 35-day period. However, Gunther did notcause summons to issue against each defendant within the 35-dayperiod. His request for summons did not list IDOT or IDOT'saddress in the list of defendants to receive summons. Summonsnever issued against IDOT, a necessary party. Gunther's failureto follow the requirements of the Act requires dismissal of hisaction. 735 ILCS 5/3-102 (West 2002). See Hanke v. Departmentof Professional Regulation, 296 Ill. App. 3d 825, 828, 696 N.E.2d12 (1998).

Gunther contends his failure to list IDOT in the certificateof mailing section of the summons form was de minimus, and he wasin substantial compliance with the procedures in the Act. Healso contends service on the Illinois Attorney General, ascounsel for IDOT, was sufficient to notify IDOT of the complaint.

Gunther relies on Old Ben Coal Company v. IndustrialCommission, 217 Ill. App. 3d 70, 576 N.E.2d 890 (1991). In OldBen Coal, the employer, Old Ben Coal Company, appealed thedecision of the Illinois Industrial Commission that the claimant,Clifford Frye, was permanently and totally disabled. Old BenCoal, 217 Ill. App. 3d at 72. In the request for service ofsummons, Frye was not listed as a party in interest, his lastknown address was not listed, and the clerk of the court did notissue a summons directed to Frye. Service of summons wasdirected to Frye's attorneys of record, whose addresses werelisted in the request for summons. The court held the employerprovided sufficient information for the clerk to properly notifyclaimant and his attorneys of the pending appeal. Old Ben Coal,217 Ill. App. 3d at 76.

This case cannot be compared to Old Ben Coal. In that case,the relevant statute, section 19(f)(1) of the Workers'Occupational Diseases Act, provided, in part: "[t]he clerk of thecourt [shall issue summons] by mailing a copy of the summons tothe office of the Commission, and a copy of the summons to theother parties in interest or their attorney or attorneys ofrecord***." (Emphasis added.) 820 ILCS 305/19(f)(1) (West1996).

In this case, Gunther was required to have summons issued toIDOT, the administrative agency. 735 ILCS 5/3-105 (West 2002). Service on the attorney for the agency does not suffice. Guntherdoes not contend the good faith exception applies to this case. However, even if we were to consider it, Gunther has not offered,nor does the record disclose, any evidence demonstrating a goodfaith effort to serve IDOT.

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court's order dismissing Gunther'scomplaint for administrative review.

CAHILL, and BURKE, JJ., concur.