2021 IL App (1st) 192118-U
No. 1-19-2118
Order filed March 9, 2021.
Second Division
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 DISTRICT
RANDY STONEBERG, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 2017 L 004129 ) JORGE BALTAZAR, ) The Honorable ) Allen Price Walker, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LAVIN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Pucinski and Cobbs concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion for sanctions where he failed to make a timely request for an evidentiary hearing and the record was otherwise sufficient for the court to determine whether sanctions were warranted.
¶2 This appeal arises from the circuit court’s order denying defendant Jorge Baltazar’s
motion for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018), against plaintiff No. 1-19-2118
Randy Stoneberg. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred by denying the motion
without holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the court’s judgment.
¶3 In 2017, Northwestern University fired plaintiff after determining that he had made
inappropriate comments concerning defendant. Essentially, the university found the harassment
allegations of defendant, and others, were more credible than plaintiff’s denial of those
allegations. Plaintiff then brought this defamation action against defendant, alleging that he made
false statements to the university during its investigation. Plaintiff eventually filed a second-
amended complaint and a motion to continue trial, which the circuit court denied on January 3,
2019. On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his case against defendant
without prejudice, which the court granted.
¶4 Defendant then filed a motion seeking attorney fees and sanctions against plaintiff
pursuant to Rule 137. Defendant argued that the university’s report corroborated his allegations
of harassment and showed that plaintiff’s complaint had no arguable basis in law or fact.
Defendant’s motion did not, however, request an evidentiary hearing.
¶5 In response, plaintiff argued that during their depositions, he and defendant “stuck to
their respective positions regarding whether [defendant’s] statements to [the university] were
true.” Plaintiff also submitted sworn statements from witnesses corroborating his denial of the
harassment allegations. According to plaintiff, the mere existence of a factual dispute did not
make his allegations sanctionable.
¶6 On July 23, 2019, the circuit court denied defendant’s motion for sanctions because the
conflicting deposition testimony showed plaintiff had a basis for bringing the lawsuit.
Additionally, voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit did not show it was frivolous when filed. We
-2- No. 1-19-2118
note that defendant did not argue before the court that it was required to conduct an evidentiary
hearing. 1
¶7 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider. He acknowledged that the court denied the
sanctions motion because evidence was conflicting but argued that the court should have held an
evidentiary hearing. The court denied the motion to reconsider. We note that substitute counsel
appeared in defense counsel’s stead at the hearing on the motion to reconsider and did not argue
that defendant had additional evidence to present.
¶8 On appeal, defendant solely asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying
his request for an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 137 motion for sanctions. Hess v. Lloyd, 2012
IL App (5th) 090059, ¶ 22 (setting forth the abuse of discretion standard of review).
¶9 Rule 137 is intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process by penalizing litigants who
file vexatious and harassing lawsuits based on unsupported factual or legal allegations. Williams,
Montgomery & John, Ltd. v. Broaddus, 2017 IL App (1st) 161063, ¶ 41. The rule states that [t]he
signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading,
motion or other document; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after
reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law ***, and that it is
not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or
needless increase in the cost of litigation.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 137(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2018). Where this rule
is violated, the circuit court “may” impose a sanction, which can include attorney fees. Id. The
circuit court is not required to impose a sanction, however, even when the rule is violated. Lake
Environmental, Inc. v. Arnold, 2015 IL 118110, ¶ 15. Furthermore, the court is not required to
explain its reasons for denying a sanctions motion. Id. ¶ 19.
1 The court also denied as moot defendant’s motion to amend its Rule 137 motion to seek sanctions against plaintiff’s attorney.
-3- No. 1-19-2118
¶ 10 When reviewing the denial of sanctions, the appellate court should examine the record to
determine whether the lower court had an adequate basis to make its decision. Id. If the record is
insufficient, remand may be appropriate. Id. That being said, rule 137 does not require that a
circuit court always conduct an evidentiary hearing. Shea Rogal & Associates v. Leslie
Volkswagen, Inc., 250 Ill. App. 3d 149, 154 (1993). Rather, it is well settled that if the record is
sufficient for the court to be informed, no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Williams,
Montgomery & John, Ltd., 2017 IL App (1st) 161063, ¶ 45; Hess, 2012 IL App (5th) 090059, ¶
26; Century Road Builders, Inc. v. City of Palos Heights, 283 Ill. App. 3d 527, 530 (1996); cf. In
re Marriage of Johnson, 2011 IL App (1st) 102826, ¶ 34 (stating that the individual subject to
sanction is entitled to an evidentiary hearing); In re Estate of Baker, 242 Ill. App. 3d 684, 688
(1993) (stating that “the trial court must allow for an evidentiary hearing before imposing
sanctions” (emphasis added)). Whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary depends on the facts
of a given case. Gershak v. Feign, 317 Ill. App. 3d 14, 23 (2000).
¶ 11 First, we find that defendant should have requested an evidentiary hearing in his motion
for sanctions if he felt that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. Kellett v. Roberts, 276 Ill. App.
3d 164, 174 (1995); Shea Rogal & Associates, 250 Ill. App. 3d at 154-55. Instead, defendant’s
motion implied that the court had everything it needed to enter a decision. Even when defendant
did ask for an evidentiary hearing in his motion to reconsider, he did not bring that request to the
court’s attention at the hearing on the motion or make an offer of proof as to what evidence he
wanted to present.
¶ 12 In any event, the pleadings, the attached deposition transcripts and affidavits, and the
university’s report were sufficient to enable to the circuit court to make an informed decision
without holding an evidentiary hearing. The record shows that defendant, and corroborating
-4- No. 1-19-2118
witnesses, alleged that plaintiff made inappropriate comments. Additionally, plaintiff, and
corroborating witnesses, have denied that plaintiff made those comments. While the university
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2021 IL App (1st) 192118-U
No. 1-19-2118
Order filed March 9, 2021.
Second Division
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 DISTRICT
RANDY STONEBERG, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 2017 L 004129 ) JORGE BALTAZAR, ) The Honorable ) Allen Price Walker, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LAVIN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Pucinski and Cobbs concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The circuit court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on defendant’s motion for sanctions where he failed to make a timely request for an evidentiary hearing and the record was otherwise sufficient for the court to determine whether sanctions were warranted.
¶2 This appeal arises from the circuit court’s order denying defendant Jorge Baltazar’s
motion for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018), against plaintiff No. 1-19-2118
Randy Stoneberg. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred by denying the motion
without holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the court’s judgment.
¶3 In 2017, Northwestern University fired plaintiff after determining that he had made
inappropriate comments concerning defendant. Essentially, the university found the harassment
allegations of defendant, and others, were more credible than plaintiff’s denial of those
allegations. Plaintiff then brought this defamation action against defendant, alleging that he made
false statements to the university during its investigation. Plaintiff eventually filed a second-
amended complaint and a motion to continue trial, which the circuit court denied on January 3,
2019. On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his case against defendant
without prejudice, which the court granted.
¶4 Defendant then filed a motion seeking attorney fees and sanctions against plaintiff
pursuant to Rule 137. Defendant argued that the university’s report corroborated his allegations
of harassment and showed that plaintiff’s complaint had no arguable basis in law or fact.
Defendant’s motion did not, however, request an evidentiary hearing.
¶5 In response, plaintiff argued that during their depositions, he and defendant “stuck to
their respective positions regarding whether [defendant’s] statements to [the university] were
true.” Plaintiff also submitted sworn statements from witnesses corroborating his denial of the
harassment allegations. According to plaintiff, the mere existence of a factual dispute did not
make his allegations sanctionable.
¶6 On July 23, 2019, the circuit court denied defendant’s motion for sanctions because the
conflicting deposition testimony showed plaintiff had a basis for bringing the lawsuit.
Additionally, voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit did not show it was frivolous when filed. We
-2- No. 1-19-2118
note that defendant did not argue before the court that it was required to conduct an evidentiary
hearing. 1
¶7 Defendant filed a motion to reconsider. He acknowledged that the court denied the
sanctions motion because evidence was conflicting but argued that the court should have held an
evidentiary hearing. The court denied the motion to reconsider. We note that substitute counsel
appeared in defense counsel’s stead at the hearing on the motion to reconsider and did not argue
that defendant had additional evidence to present.
¶8 On appeal, defendant solely asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying
his request for an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 137 motion for sanctions. Hess v. Lloyd, 2012
IL App (5th) 090059, ¶ 22 (setting forth the abuse of discretion standard of review).
¶9 Rule 137 is intended to prevent abuse of the judicial process by penalizing litigants who
file vexatious and harassing lawsuits based on unsupported factual or legal allegations. Williams,
Montgomery & John, Ltd. v. Broaddus, 2017 IL App (1st) 161063, ¶ 41. The rule states that [t]he
signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading,
motion or other document; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after
reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law ***, and that it is
not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or
needless increase in the cost of litigation.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 137(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2018). Where this rule
is violated, the circuit court “may” impose a sanction, which can include attorney fees. Id. The
circuit court is not required to impose a sanction, however, even when the rule is violated. Lake
Environmental, Inc. v. Arnold, 2015 IL 118110, ¶ 15. Furthermore, the court is not required to
explain its reasons for denying a sanctions motion. Id. ¶ 19.
1 The court also denied as moot defendant’s motion to amend its Rule 137 motion to seek sanctions against plaintiff’s attorney.
-3- No. 1-19-2118
¶ 10 When reviewing the denial of sanctions, the appellate court should examine the record to
determine whether the lower court had an adequate basis to make its decision. Id. If the record is
insufficient, remand may be appropriate. Id. That being said, rule 137 does not require that a
circuit court always conduct an evidentiary hearing. Shea Rogal & Associates v. Leslie
Volkswagen, Inc., 250 Ill. App. 3d 149, 154 (1993). Rather, it is well settled that if the record is
sufficient for the court to be informed, no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Williams,
Montgomery & John, Ltd., 2017 IL App (1st) 161063, ¶ 45; Hess, 2012 IL App (5th) 090059, ¶
26; Century Road Builders, Inc. v. City of Palos Heights, 283 Ill. App. 3d 527, 530 (1996); cf. In
re Marriage of Johnson, 2011 IL App (1st) 102826, ¶ 34 (stating that the individual subject to
sanction is entitled to an evidentiary hearing); In re Estate of Baker, 242 Ill. App. 3d 684, 688
(1993) (stating that “the trial court must allow for an evidentiary hearing before imposing
sanctions” (emphasis added)). Whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary depends on the facts
of a given case. Gershak v. Feign, 317 Ill. App. 3d 14, 23 (2000).
¶ 11 First, we find that defendant should have requested an evidentiary hearing in his motion
for sanctions if he felt that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. Kellett v. Roberts, 276 Ill. App.
3d 164, 174 (1995); Shea Rogal & Associates, 250 Ill. App. 3d at 154-55. Instead, defendant’s
motion implied that the court had everything it needed to enter a decision. Even when defendant
did ask for an evidentiary hearing in his motion to reconsider, he did not bring that request to the
court’s attention at the hearing on the motion or make an offer of proof as to what evidence he
wanted to present.
¶ 12 In any event, the pleadings, the attached deposition transcripts and affidavits, and the
university’s report were sufficient to enable to the circuit court to make an informed decision
without holding an evidentiary hearing. The record shows that defendant, and corroborating
-4- No. 1-19-2118
witnesses, alleged that plaintiff made inappropriate comments. Additionally, plaintiff, and
corroborating witnesses, have denied that plaintiff made those comments. While the university
believed defendant over plaintiff, this did not preclude plaintiff from filing a defamation action
asking the circuit court to make its own credibility determination. At a minimum, plaintiff’s own
testimony would support his defamation claim, even if the circuit court ultimately would have
sided with defendant had this case made it to trial. Villaverde v. IP Acquisition VIII, LLC, 2015
IL App (1st) 143187, ¶70 (recognizing that a trial court’s determination that the evidence did not
support a party’s claims did not mean that that party was unable to reasonably argue that the
evidence did support its claims). Defendant has not explained what more the court needed to hear
short of a full trial on the merits of plaintiff’s defamation claim. Accordingly, the court did not
abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for sanctions without an evidentiary hearing.
Cf. In re Estate of Smith, 201 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 1010 (1990) (overruled on other grounds by
Lake Environmental, Inc. v. Arnold, 2015 IL 118110, ¶ 9) (stating that in the case at hand the
court needed to hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on a motion for attorney fees).
¶ 13 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.
¶ 14 Affirmed.
-5-