Civil Procedure Case Brief # 2

Title and Citation: Johnson v. Saenz, 731 N.E.2d 764 (Ill. 2000)

Identities of Parties: (P) Carol J. Johnson brought an action against (D) Bertha
Saenz for personal injuries she sustained in a car accident.

Procedural History: After mandatory arbitration, Circuit Court of Winnebago
County entered judgment on the arbitration in favor of P. D appealed to the Illinois
Court of Appeals.

Facts: P stopped at a red light and D car collided with P car. Attached to the P
compliant was a notice to compel D to appear to arbitration. D was served with
summons and compliant, with exact details on where she needed to attend and
when for the arbitration hearing. Following the arbitration hearing, the D did not
attend however her lawyer did, the P was award $19,500. When D lawyer was at the
courthouse he noticed the D there as well. D filed a notice of rejection and P filed a
motion to bar D from rejecting the award. P had two reasons of the notice: (1)
alleged the D should be barred from rejecting the award because D violated rule
when she failed to appear (2) alleging D did not participate in a good-faith and
meaning manner with regards to the arbitration hearing. D said there was an
language barrier and confusion as to why she did not appear for the hearing.

Issue(s): Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in barring the P from rejecting
the arbitration award as sanction for failing to appear in person at the arbitration
hearing?

Holding and Rule: Yes, trial court did abuse its discretion in barring the P from
rejecting the arbitration award where there was no evidence that the Ds failure to
appear at the hearing was the result of a deliberate and pronounced disregard for
the rules of the court.

Courts Reasoning: The D was represented by a counsel at the arbitration hearing,
and got lost at the courthouse and due to a language barrier couldnt find where the
hearing was taking place. Unlike the previous cases stated where the D showed a
deliberate and disregard of the rules of the court, the P did not. The D met her
burden of showing that her noncompliance was reasonable and the result of
extenuating circumstances. Also D behavior shows that she did not intent to make a
mockery of the arbitration proceedings; therefore the trial did abuse its discretion
when now allowing the D to reject the arbitration award.

Judgment and Order: Reversed and remanded.