Underwood v. City of Chicago

2023 IL App (1st) 211317

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: December 1, 2023
• Docket: 1-21-1317
• Status: Published

Opinion

2023 IL App (1st) 211317

SIXTH DIVISION December 1, 2023 No. 1-21-1317

IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT

MICHAEL W. UNDERWOOD, JOSEPH M. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court VUICH, RAYMOND SCACCHITTI, ROBERT ) of Cook County. McNULTY, JOHN E. DORN, WILLIAM J. ) SELKE, JANIECE R. ARCHER, DENNIS ) MUSHOL, RICHARD AGUINAGA, JAMES ) SANDOW, CATHERINE A. SANDOW, ) MARIE JOHONSTON, and 337 NAMED ) PLAINTIFFS LISTED IN EXHIBIT 23 TO ) THE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, ∗ ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) No. 13 CH 17450 ) THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal ) The Honorable Corporation; TRUSTEES OF THE ) Neil H. Cohen, POLICEMEN’S ANNUITY AND ) Judge, presiding. BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO; ) TRUSTEES OF THE FIREMEN’S ) ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF ) CHICAGO; TRUSTEES OF THE MUNICIPAL) EMPLOYEES’ ANNUITY AND BENEFIT ) FUND OF CHICAGO; and TRUSTEES OF ) THE LABORERS’ AND RETIREMENT ) BOARD EMPLOYEES’ ANNUNITY AND ) BENEIFT FUND OF CHICAGO, ) ) Defendants ) ) (The City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, ) Defendant-Appellee). )

∗ See the appendix to this opinion for a list of the 337 named plaintiffs listed in exhibit 23 to the sixth amended complaint. No. 1-21-1317

PRESIDING JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices C.A. Walker and Tailor concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶1 The City of Chicago (City), a defendant and the sole appellee in this appeal, filed a

motion in the trial court seeking an order dismissing the case against it with prejudice. The trial

court granted the City’s motion on September 9, 2021. In its order, the trial court quoted Justice

Mikva, who had written on behalf of a unanimous appellate court: “It is absolutely law of the

case that the plaintiffs have no right to receive—and that neither the City nor the Funds have

any obligation to provide—any additional monetary contributions or to guarantee affordable

healthcare.” Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53 (Underwood III).

Then-appellate court Justices Cunningham and Connors concurred.

¶2 On this appeal, the issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims

against the City seeking additional money and guarantees of health care. For the reasons

discussed below, we affirm.

¶3 BACKGROUND

¶4 I. The Parties

¶5 Plaintiffs’ sixth amended complaint (complaint) is the most recent complaint filed in

this action. It alleges that plaintiffs are 337 participants in one of the four pension funds named

as defendants. In Underwood III, this court described plaintiffs as follows: “Plaintiffs in the

present action are past or present City employees who alleged improper diminution of pension

benefits under the Illinois Constitution, breach of contract, estoppel, impairment of contract,

and denial of equal protection.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 14. 2 No. 1-21-1317

¶6 Underwood III observed that the City, the sole defendant in the present appeal, 1 is an

entity that had “provided its retirees with fixed-rate healthcare subsidies funded by city taxes.”

Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. However, in 1987, “the City announced that it

would stop providing the subsidies,” and this was the start of the legal troubles that eventually

led to the present suit. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 9.

¶7 Regarding the four funds who are defendants but not appellees, this court has observed:

“The General Assembly created four pension funds for City employees in order to

administer and carry out the provisions of the Illinois Pension Code: (1) the

Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund (Police Fund), (2) the Firemen’s Annuity and

Benefit Fund (Fire Fund), (3) the Municipal Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund

(Municipal Fund), and (4) the Laborers’ and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity

and Benefit Fund (Laborers’ Fund) (collectively, Funds).” Underwood v. City of

Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 3 (Underwood I).

The taxpayers of the City finance the funds’ obligations “through a tax levy.” Underwood I,

2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 3. According to appellants, litigation continues in the trial court

over claims against the four funds.

¶8 II. The 1983 and 1985 Subsidies

¶9 In 1983, the City agreed to provide fixed-rate health care subsidies to retired Chicago

police officers and firefighters. Subsequently, the Illinois Pension Code was amended to

1 Plaintiffs represent in their brief to this court that litigation continues in the circuit court concerning claims against the funds. As described below in paragraph 26, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, in part, finding that the funds had a statutory obligation under the 1983 and 1985 amendments to contract with one or more carriers to provide group health insurance for all eligible annuitants. This issue is not before us on this appeal. 3 No. 1-21-1317

include these subsidies. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7 (citing Pub. Act 82-

1044, § 1 (eff. Jan. 12, 1983) (adding Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 108½, ¶ 6-164.2)).

¶ 10 In 1985, the Pension Code was further amended to include subsidies to retired

municipal employees, laborers, and retirement board employees. Underwood III, 2020 IL App

(1st) 182180, ¶ 7.

¶ 11 The 1983 and 1985 “legislation contemplated that each of the funds established for

these employees”—namely, the four funds named as defendants here—“would contract with

an insurance carrier to provide a healthcare plan for its retirees.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App

(1st) 182180, ¶ 7. The funds would then “use the monthly subsidies provided by the City

toward the premiums for such coverage.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. If

the premiums cost more than the subsidies, “the excess was to be deducted from a retiree’s

monthly annuity,” unless the retiree renounced the coverage. Underwood III, 2020 IL App

¶ 12 III. The Korshak Litigation

¶ 13 When the City announced in 1987 that it was going to stop paying these subsidies on

January 1, 1988, it also filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to

pay them, which became known as the “Korshak Litigation.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App

(1st) 182180, ¶ 9.

¶ 14 Before the merits of the Korshak litigation were decided, however, the City and the

funds reached a settlement. This settlement was not a permanent solution but merely an interim

measure, designed to give the parties more time to reach a more lasting solution. However, if

they failed to reach such a solution at the end of 10 years, the settlement returned the parties to

4 No. 1-21-1317

the same legal status that they had had on October 19, 1987, when the litigation began.

Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 10.

¶ 15 Effective August 23, 1989, the Pension Code was amended, to include the terms of this

first interim settlement, including a 10-year limit. In 1997, before the time limit in the first

interim agreement expired, the parties reached a second interim agreement, which was set to

expire on June 30, 2003. On April 4, 2003, the parties reached a final settlement. Underwood

III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 10-12.

¶ 16 IV. The Underwood Litigation

¶ 17 On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a new action against the City and the four funds, which

is the present Underwood litigation. Underwood I, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 12.

¶ 18 Regarding the Underwood litigation, this court has observed that plaintiffs can be

divided into “four subclasses: (1) those who retired before December 31, 1987 ***, (2) those

who retired between January 1, 1988, and August 23, 1989 ***, (3) those who retired on or

after August 23, 1989 ***, and (4) those who were hired after August 23, 1989.” Underwood

III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 14. The claims of the first and second subclasses are

“essentially moot as the parties have settled.” Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2017 IL App

(1st) 162356, ¶ 46 (Underwood II).

¶ 19 With respect to the third and fourth subclasses, the significance of the date of August

23, 1989, is that this was the date on which the Pension Code was effectively amended to

include the terms of the first interim agreement. See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180,

¶ 10.

¶ 20 This court has previously found that plaintiffs cannot “state a claim for benefits based

on the 1987, 1997, or 2003 amendments to the Pension Code because the settlements giving

5 No. 1-21-1317

rise to those amendments were stopgap measures providing only time-limited benefits.” See

Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 15-16 (describing a prior trial court ruling that

was affirmed in Underwood II); see also Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 46 (“In

Underwood II, this court agreed with the circuit court that plaintiffs could not state a claim for

coverage under the time-limited benefits provided for in the 1989, 1997, and 2003

settlements.”). This court has found that the 1983 and 1985 amendments to the Pension Code

contained no time limits and that they “protected the right to a fixed-rate subsidy” but “not a

particular quantum of buying power or level of healthcare services.” Underwood III, 2020 IL

App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 15-16. The right to subsidies extended to those in the third subclass, as

well as to those in the fourth subclass “who began participating before the 2003 settlement.”

Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 16.

¶ 21 V. Underwood II and III

¶ 22 In Underwood II, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice

of plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, estoppel, impairment of contract, equal protection

and violation of the special legislation clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 13), leaving only

issues under the pension clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5).

¶ 23 In Underwood III, which was the last time this suit was before the appellate court, we

remanded the case back to the trial court so that the trial court could consider, in the first

instance, “[w]hether the pension protection clause binds the [f]unds to create or approve a

healthcare plan and administer it for the retirees’ benefit.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st)

182180, ¶ 50. As we noted above, litigation with respect to the funds is continuing and is

separate and apart from this appeal, which concerns the City only.

¶ 24 In Underwood III, we answered the two certified questions as follows:

6 No. 1-21-1317

“(1) plaintiffs’ motion to compel each of the [f]unds to provide its annuitants with a

healthcare plan was not barred by this court’s [prior] decision *** and (2) the eligibility

cutoff for City employees entitled to receive the fixed-rate subsidies is June 30, 2003,

the last day before the terms of the court-approved 2003 settlement were incorporated

by legislative amendment into the Pension Code.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st)

182180, ¶ 62.

¶ 25 VI. This Appeal

¶ 26 On remand, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, in part,

finding that the funds had a statutory obligation under the 1983 and 1985 amendments to

contract with one or more carriers to provide group health insurance for all eligible annuitants.2

¶ 27 However, the trial court further found that this obligation did not require the funds to

pay subsidies in excess of those provided for in the 1983 and 1985 amendments for any group

health insurance or group health plan. As noted above, these issues are not before us on this

appeal.

¶ 28 The City moved for an order dismissing the claims against it. In an order granting

summary judgment in favor of the City, the trial court quoted the “law of the case” language

from Justice Mikva’s opinion that we quoted in our first paragraph above. Supra ¶ 1. The trial

court then found:

“it is now the law of the case that the only obligation the City has to the annuitants is

to levy a tax sufficient to cover the subsidies provided for in the 1983 and 1985

amendments and then transfer the collected monies to the [f]unds. Plaintiffs do not

This was the question that we indicated in Underwood II that the trial court should address 2

“in the first instance.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. 7 No. 1-21-1317

allege, and do not contend, that the City has failed to levy the required tax or transfer

the collected monies to the [f]unds.”

The trial court further found that, since the City’s sole obligation to the annuitants is to levy

the required tax and transfer the monies to the funds, and since there was no allegation that the

City was failing in this obligation, the trial court granted summary judgment for the City on

September 9, 2021. The trial court also observed that it had previously denied plaintiffs’

motion to file a seventh amended complaint. On October 8, 2021, a notice of appeal was filed

in the circuit court, and after requests for extensions of time, this case became ready for our

consideration.

¶ 29 ANALYSIS

¶ 30 On this appeal, plaintiffs challenge both the trial court’s denial of their motion to file a

seventh amended complaint and the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the

City. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 31 I. Motion to File Another Complaint

¶ 32 Plaintiffs’ proposed seventh amended complaint would be their eighth complaint, if

permitted, and plaintiffs argue that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing them to

file it. An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person could take the view that the

trial court took. Meier v. Ryan, 2023 IL App (1st) 211674, ¶ 8. In addition, a trial court’s

decision to deny leave to file an amended complaint will not be disturbed on review absent a

clear abuse of that discretion. Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance

Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 50.

¶ 33 The most important consideration is whether amendment would further the interests of

justice. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 51. Factors to consider include the

8 No. 1-21-1317

timeliness of the proposed amendment and whether plaintiffs had prior opportunities to amend.

Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 51. In Insurance Benefit, for example, the

appellate court stated that it could find no abuse where the “parties had already been litigating

the matter for nearly five years” and where the facts underlying the causes of action had been

known since the inception of the lawsuit. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 53.

In the case at bar, plaintiffs have been litigating for over 10 years, they have received

permission six times before to file an amended complaint, and the basic facts underlying this

suit have been known to them since their suit’s inception over a decade ago. Under these facts,

any reviewing court would be hard pressed to find abuse. Thus, we conclude that the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion to amend.

¶ 34 II. Summary Judgment

¶ 35 Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the

nonmovant, fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact, thereby entitling the moving

party to judgment as a matter of law. Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Infrastructure

Engineering, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17; 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2022).

Summary judgment may be an expeditious manner of disposing of a lawsuit, but it should be

utilized only when the movant’s right to judgment is clear and free from doubt. Zurich, 2023

IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17. On appeal, a reviewing court considers de novo a trial court’s

decision to grant summary judgment. Zurich, 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17.

¶ 36 On this appeal, plaintiffs limit their arguments to dismissal of their (1) contract and

(2) estoppel claims. Thus, the dismissal of their statutory and constitutional claims, which they

had made pursuant to the pension clause and the pension code, are not at issue.

9 No. 1-21-1317

¶ 37 With respect to contract, they argue that the funds had a contract with the City as the

insurer which plaintiffs can sue to enforce. With respect to estoppel, they argue that

representatives of the City repeatedly told plaintiffs at benefit seminars that they had lifetime

health care guarantees. Based on these claims, plaintiffs seek lifetime health care from the City.

¶ 38 The bottom line here is that plaintiffs continue to seek money and health care

guarantees from the City, when this court has already found that they have “no right to receive”

them from either the City or the four funds. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53.

This court found: “It is absolutely law of the case that the plaintiffs have no right to receive—

and that neither the City nor the Funds have any obligation to provide—any additional

monetary contributions or to guarantee affordable healthcare.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App

(1st) 182180, ¶ 53. The words “absolutely” and “no right” are unusually strong, definitive, and

unequivocal. See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. 3 Based on this strong and

unequivocal finding by a fellow panel in this same case, we can find no error in the trial court’s

grant of summary judgment here. In light of our affirmance of summary judgment, there is no

need to consider whether a class action should have been certified against the City.

¶ 39 CONCLUSION

¶ 40 As citizens, we are grateful for plaintiffs’ service and empathize with plaintiffs’ desire

for affordable health care, on the one hand, and on the other hand, we understand the City’s

struggle to keep costs down in an era of declining population. However, the matter before us

is a strictly legal one where the issues have already been decided by prior panels. To the extent

3 Plaintiffs in their initial brief to this court criticized the trial court for treating Justice Simon’s decision in Underwood II as law of the case while failing to address the much stronger language to that effect in Underwood III—that the trial court had quoted in its summary judgment order. Plaintiffs’ initial brief cites Underwood III twice: once to note that the trial court was reversed in part and once to note that the Underwood III court was “wary of applying law of the case to bar matters not actually decided on their merits.” 10 No. 1-21-1317

that a different outcome is warranted, that is a matter for a higher court or the legislature. For

the reasons already explained above, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of the City.

¶ 41 Affirmed.

11 No. 1-21-1317

¶ 42 APPENDIX 42 Ca rroll Pa ul 8. 1 Last Name lf irst Name I 43 Cervenka Richard G. 2 Abbey Leon 44 Chengary Ala n 3 Alongi Rosemarie 45 Cla ncy Pat rick M . 4 Anrlerson Don,ild G. 46 Cla rk Jean ne s Anderson Michelle 47 Cla rke James R. 6 /\ndler Robert 48 Cla rke Pat ricia S. 7 Andruz, i Joseph J. 49 Clepp Kat hy 8 Angelo Thomas 9 Antal Robert P. so Cl isham Sr. John E. 51 Co le Jon 10 Augustine Lawrence 11 Azara John T. 52 Co nlisk Ill James B. 12 Azza ro Donald J. 53 Co nrad Susan M. 13 Baker Madelyn 54 Co nrad Walter A. 14 Banahan Dennis M. 55 Co nsidine Joseph E. 15 Barreto Nelson 56 Co nway Carol J. 16 Batti st ella Irene C. 57 Conwell Hugh 17 Batt ist ella John 58 Co rcoran John E. 18 Bellavia Ronald J. 59 Cowell Raymond M.' 19 Berman Barry 60 Coyne Michael J. ?O Bl~kf' r,,farion 61 Cronk Virigina M. 21 Blanc Curt is E. 62 Cu nningham James J. 22 Blanc Ka ren /\, 63 Dalton Tom 23 Bobko John R. 64 Danihel William 24 Bolda Dennis J. 65 Danz! Joseph M. 25 Bonk James R. 66 Davis W illiamB. 26 Banke Fred 67 DeCola Sa lvatore L 27 Borski Anth ony E. 68 De Fran cisco Peter J. 28 Bot winski JoAnne 69 DeFranza Dona ld 29 Boyle Lesli e 70 DeGiulio William 30 Breska Vict or J. 71 DeGryse James J. 31 Brockman Ellwood W. 72 Devivo Rosalie 32 Brosnan Pat rick 33 Cagney Edward C. 73 Dicks Kenneth 34 Caliendo June G. 74 Dickson Robert M. 35 C,imrlf'n P,it rir.k T. 75 Dorich Gerald 36 Campion William E. 76 Dragon Dennis 37 Canchola Donna J. 77 Drnek Dona ld 38 Canchola Robert A. 78 Droba Gerard 39 Capesius Michael C. 79 Drummond Richard L. 40 Carlo Patricia 80 Drust WayneW. 41 Carr Elalne 81 Dubielak Ronald

12 No. 1-21-1317

-82 Dunn Terrence L. 122 Green Mary 83 Dunn Sr. Lawrence J. 123 Gunn ell Donald L. 84 Durbak Andres 124 Gutierrez George 85 Dyckman Barbara 125 Gvozdenovich Ant hony 86 Dyckman Louis 126 Hagele Marvin 87 Dziedzic Dennis 127 Hammermeist er JoAnne Connelly 88 Egan William G. 128 Hammermeist er Raymond F. 89 Eichler Thomas 129 Harper Juana J. 90 Eldridge James 130 Harri ngton Pat rick J. 91 Engelsman Richard 131 Hartford Joseph B. 92 Eshoo John C. 132 Hat zel Joseph 93 Evanish Francis 133 Hea ly John 94 Everett Da niel 134 Hea ly Lawrence 95 Faragoi Thomas V. 135 Heidemann Fred G. 96 Farrer Gerald L. 136 Heyden Fran H. 97 Fa ust Robert 137 Hopkins James T. 98 Ferriter John T. 138 Horkavy Grego ry L. 99 Ficke Thomas R. 139 Horn e Ross 100 Fields Robert M. 140 Hourihane Michael 101 Finlayson Donna M. 141 Hujar Richard A. 102 Finlayson James R. 142 Ippolito Joseph C. 103 Flanagan, Jr. Thomas J. 143 Ippo lit o Patricia 104 Flynn Michael C. 144 lvanjack Ant hony J. 105 Foley Janice 145 Januszy k Donald 106 Foran John K. 146 Jazdyk Raymond 107 Frank Al bert M. 147 Jin Tony H. 108 Frederick Art hur G. 148 Johnson Harold F. 109 Frost Barbara C. 149 Juli en Patricia Lou 110 Fruin James E. 150 Kann Vivian J. 111 Glowacki Christi ne 151 Ka rl Joyce L. 112 Glynn-Johnson Mary 152 Keane Carole L. 113 Gneda Diane 153 Kehoe James G. 114 Gogli otti Antoinette 154 Keller, Jr. Fran k J. 115 Golczak Anthony 155 Kelly Francis 116 Golen William J. 156 Kern George "St eve" 117 Golosinski Casimer L. 157 King Richard 118 Gorski St even H. 158 King Walter 119 Gottfried Alan J. 159 Klauba Bennet 120 Gould David R. 160 Kleidon, Jr. Walter A. 121 Gray Curt is 161 Kliner Donald C.

13 No. 1-21-1317

-162 Kliner Helen ,_ 202 Milazzo-Triggs Catherine 163 Klodnicki Johin H. 203 Miller James 164 Knight Eve lyn F. 204 Miller John F. 165 Kobel Rich ard 205 Minich John 166 Kocur Thomas M. 206 Mitkal Victor 167 Kopbenhoefer Charl es 207 Mont edore Ronald P 168 Kosteris Dimitri os 208 Morgan Charles E. 169 Kotowicz James F. 209 Morgan, Jr. Walt er J. 170 Kouchoukos Andrew F. 210 Morley Christine 171 Kozaritz Johin A. 211 Morse Robert C. 172 Krupowicz Kenneth G. 212 M ost acchi o Santo V. 173 Kwiatkowski Robert P. 213 Mueller Joan 174 Lambros Kathleen 214 Munoz Luis 175 Lampard Marilyn C. 215 Murphy Marie Irene 176 Leracz Edmond 216 Murray Michael M. 177 Loft us James R. 217 Nagle Jeffery Jon 178 Logan Patrick 218 Nakaguchi An n M. 179 Lo renz Johin G. 219 Nauer Donald B. 180 Lotito James M. 220 Nieckula Cynt hia 181 Lucchesi James 221 Nork Charles 182 Maderak Terry 222 Nyhan Thomas P. 183 Madigan Raymond 223 O'Connor Margaret 184 Madsen Theodore J. 224 Oga rek Joseph 185 Majeske Albert R. 225 Olivieri Edwin 186 Majeske Carol 226 O'Malley Francis 187 Makowski Karen A. 227 Onest o Philip 188 Maley M u riel M. 228 O'Rei lly Bernard 189 Manning Jen,nifer 229 O'Rourke James A. 190 Maratto Kathleen 230 Oskielunas Adam B. 191 Mares Achilles 231 Ott RoyJ. 192 Martin Patrick 232 Padar James R. 193 Massi Joh n S. 233 Palmer Ronald A. 194 McCann Kenneth J. 234 Paolello James 195 McCarthy George 235 Paoletti Grayceanne 196 McFadden Robert J. 236 Paoletti James M . 197 McGivney Joh n M. 237 198 McQuaid Michael J. 238 Parizanski Pa ul 199 Midona Barbara A. 239 Patt Corinne 200 Midona, Sr. Joseph A. 240 Paulnitsky Roland 201 Milam Mary J. 241 Pemberton Pat rick M.

14 No. 1-21-1317

242 Peron Robert J. 282 Sebastian, Jr. RoyD. 243 Perovich Vladim ir 283 Seils Richard C. 244 Pizzo Angeline 284 Selke Jerome C. 245 Poedtke Ronald 285 Seyfert Eugene H. 246 Poholik Peter F. 286 Seyfert Judith A. 247 Polerecky Robert E. 287 Shuman Bernard 248 Pontrelli Darlene 288 Signoretti J. Robert 249 Ptak Theodore 289 Sloma Raymond T. 250 Quinn Robert F. 290 Sm it h Charles J. 251 Quinn Sylvia A. 291 Smith Deborah K. 252 Ratledge Robert D. 292 Sobczyk Jane 253 Reiter Mark 293 Sowinski Ronald 254 Ret zke Gery 294 Specht Robert 255 Reynolds Thomas A. 295 Speda le Dominic 256 Rhoden Dawn 296 Spratt Doris 257 Rhoden Ralph 297 St am pnick Raymond L. 258 Rieck Judit h 298 St aszak Norbert 259 Rimkus Sta nley 299 St einmeier Art hur M. 260 Rini Vict or 300 Strazzante Charles M . 261 Rio rdan Ann 301 Suess Robert 262 Rodgers Audrey 302 Sullivan Michael T. 263 Rohloff Richard P. 303 Sut or Yvon ne 264 Roo ney Sr. Pat rick F. 304 Swiat kowski Da niel 265 Roscich Ant hony M. 305 Szparkowski Debra 266 Ross Kenn eth C. 306 Szparkowski Gary 267 Rowa n Karen 307 Tapkowski Roman 268 Rowan Michael 308 Terrance Timot hy J. 269 Rowan Richard 309 Thulis John 270 Ruback Charles R. 310 Tobuch Lawrence J. 271 Rumsfeld Alma 311 Tolley John F. 272 Rya n David 312 Tomaska Joseph A. 273 Sappanos Thomas 313 Tracey Robert J. 274 Sarnowski Ret . Sgt . Robert W. 314 Troken Eugene B. 275 Sasso Kat hryn 315 Utz Charl es A. 276 Sca lise Ant hony J. 316 Ut z James J. 277 Schrager DanielV. 317 Vit aioli Kathleen 278 Schreiner Angela M. 318 Vit aioli Paul 279 Schultz Marshall A. 319 Vogt Vince 280 Schwab John 320 Vucko Ralph E. 281 Schwartz Gerald 321 Wagner Patricia M.

15 No. 1-21-1317

322 Webb James E. 323 Webb Laura M. 324 Weber Matthew E. 325 Wein er Ben 326 Welninski Anthony 327 Whalen Thomas Michael 328 White Glenn L. 329 White Ralph 330 W iberg Wayne A. 331 W inter Joyce A. 332 Wo lanski John 333 Wo lfe Joseph 334 Woody Lorraine 335 Yablong Phil H. 336 You ng Phillip P. 337 Zolna Clifford A. 338 Zurawik James E. 339 Zurawski James J.

16 No. 1-21-1317

Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 211317

Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 13-CH-17450; the Hon. Neil H. Cohen, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth T. Goldstein, of Krislov & for Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellants. Appellant:

Attorneys Mary B. Richardson-Lowry, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago for (Myriam Zreczny Kasper, Suzanne M. Loose, and Sara K. Appellee: Hornstra, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee.