Meredith v. Oradent Associates

Opinion

2026 IL App (1st) 241687-U

FOURTH DIVISION Order Filed: May 21, 2026

No. 1-24-1687

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________

LENNETTE MEREDITH ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiffs-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 23 M 1013854 ) ORADENT ASSOCIATES ) Honorable ) Kerrie Maloney Laytin, Defendants-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE LYLE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Navarro and Justice Ocasio concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

¶2 On September 5, 2023, plaintiff-appellant, Lennette Meredith, filed a complaint against

defendant-appellee, Oradent Associates, alleging the company did not provide her with a working

denture and refused to provide her with a refund. On August 22, 2024, prior to the entry of the

judgment on award of arbitration, Ms. Meredith filed her notice of appeal. On appeal, Ms. Meredith No. 1-24-1687

argues that the arbitrator’s award should be overturned. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 On September 5, 2023, Ms. Meredith filed a complaint against Oradent Associates,

alleging that she was given defective dentures. She claimed a tooth broke off within six months of

the completion of the casting and she had to go to another dentist multiple times to get the dentures

repaired. On December 6, 2023, the trial court entered an order of default against Oradent

Associates. On December 19, 2023, Oradent Associates filed a motion to vacate the default, which

the trial court granted, vacating the default.

¶5 On January 31, 2024, the trial court entered an order assigning the matter to mandatory

arbitration. On July 17, 2024, the award of the arbitrators found in favor of Oradent Associates.

On August 22, 2024, Ms. Meredith filed her notice of appeal. On August 28, 2024, the trial court

entered the judgment on the award of arbitration.

¶6 ANALYSIS

¶7 “[C]ourts of review have an independent duty to consider jurisdiction.” People v. Lewis,

234 Ill. 2d 32, 36 (2009). Jurisdiction grants a court of review the power to interpret and apply the

law. In re M.W., 232 Ill. 2d 408, 414 (2009). Unless there is a properly filed notice of appeal, we

lack jurisdiction over the matter and must dismiss the appeal. American Accounting Ass’n, 2014

IL 117293, ¶ 8.

¶8 “It is well-established that except as specifically provided in the supreme court rules, this

court is without jurisdiction to review judgments, orders and decrees that are not final.” In re

Marriage of Kostusik, 361 Ill. App. 3d 103, 108 (2005). The timeliness of a notice of appeal is

-2- No. 1-24-1687

governed by our supreme court rules. American Accounting Ass’n, 2014 IL 117293, ¶ 9. Rule

303(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2017) requires a party in a civil case to file a notice of appeal with the clerk

of the circuit court “within 30 days after the entry of the final judgment appealed from.”

¶9 Ms. Meredith filed her notice of appeal six days prior to the judgment on the award of

arbitration, which was the final judgment since Ms. Meredith did not file a rejection of the award.

As a result, Ms. Meredith did not file a timely notice of appeal, and consequently we do not have

jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

¶ 10 CONCLUSION

¶ 11 For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

¶ 12 Appeal dismissed.

-3-