Craig M. Sandberg Tapped for Oral Argument Before the Supreme Court of Illinois on Case of First Impression Regarding Mandatory Statutory Costs Following Arbitration
For Immediate Release: December 17, 2024
Contact: Craig M. Sandberg, 833.726.3237, craig@sandberglaw.com
Springfield, IL – This is a personal injury action seeking monetary damages for injuries sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident. On February 26, 2020, the vehicle driven by the defendant collided into the rear of the plaintiff’s stopped vehicle. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained injuries and damages.
The matter was part of the Cook County’s Law Division Mandatory Arbitration program. Following her receipt of her arbitration award in her favor, Plaintiff-Appellant, as the prevailing party, sought taxation of mandatory statutory costs (735 ILCS 5/5-108) and mandatory statutory prejudgment interest (735 ILCS 5/2-1303(c)). The trial court denied the relief sought by Plaintiff holding, in essence, that (1) Plaintiff should have sought an award of mandatory statutory costs before she was, in fact, determined to be a prevailing party and (2) Plaintiff should have sought an award of prejudgment interest before, in fact, a judgment has been entered in her favor.
The appellate court (First District) affirmed the portion of the trial court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to recover mandatory statutory costs, but reversed the portion of the trial court’s order denying the Plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest and remanded for the trial court to enter an order granting prejudgment interest. Jordan v. Macedo, 2024 IL App (1st) 230079, ¶¶ 1, 33. The panel below was unanimous on its reversal of the trial court’s denial of prejudgment interest.
However, a majority of the panel in the First District held that Plaintiff’s statutory right to recover her court costs (735 ILCS 5/2-108) (and, implicitly, any defendant’s statutory right (735 ILCS 5/2-109) too) required that, prior to being determined a prevailing party, a litigant must provide the arbitrator a specific cost calculation or be forever foreclosed from a recovery of those mandatory statutory costs. Justice Mary L. Mikva, in her dissenting opinion, disagreed with the majority’s decision affirming the denial ofPlaintiff’s recovery of statutory costs. Justice Mikva would have reversed the trial court’s denial ofPlaintiff’s motion for statutory costs.Jordan, 2024 IL App (1st) 230079, ¶¶ 37-52.
In her appeal before the Supreme Court, Plaintiff did not appeal the appellate court’s opinion reversing the portion of the trial court’s order denying Plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest. Plaintiff only appealed the portion of its opinion denying mandatory statutory costs pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/5-108. On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court was granted.
WHAT: Oral arguments in Irma Jordan v. Esmeralda Macedo (Docket No. 130687)
WHO: Craig M. Sandberg will argue for the plaintiff-appellant, before the Supreme Court of Illinois
WHEN: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
WHERE: Supreme Court of Illinois, 200 East Capitol Avenue, Springfield, Illinois 62701