Wu v. Kumar

2025 IL App (1st) 241724-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 1-24-1724
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2025 IL App (1st) 241724-U No. 1-24-1724 Order filed December 19, 2025 FIFTH 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 ______________________________________________________________________________ JIJUN WU, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 22 M1 102153 ) RAM KUMAR, ) Honorable ) Stephen A. Swedlow, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE MITCHELL delivered the judgment of the court. Justice Mikva and Justice Tailor concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: We affirm the judgment of the trial court where defendant failed to provide a record on appeal sufficient for our review of the issues presented.

¶2 Defendant Ram Kumar appeals pro se from the trial court’s order entering judgment for

$3,000 in favor of plaintiff Jijun Wu following a bench trial on Wu’s complaint regarding Kumar’s

remodeling work. On appeal, Kumar argues that (1) the trial court erred because Wu did not

support her claims, “is not the property owner,” and “had no authority” to sue on the owner’s No. 1-24-1724

behalf; (2) the trial court did not consider Kumar’s counterclaim; and (3) Kumar “was not allowed”

into a video conference call between Wu and the court. We affirm.

¶3 The record on appeal consists of one volume of the common law record and lacks a report

of proceedings or any acceptable substitute.

¶4 On January 31, 2022, Wu filed a pro se small claims complaint alleging that Kumar owed

her $10,000. According to the complaint, Wu hired Kumar to remodel her daughter’s apartment in

July 2021. The total cost of labor and materials was $32,100. Wu alleged several problems with

Kumar’s work, including unleveled floors in the kitchen and bathroom, an unstable toilet, and

failure to install molding to the upper cabinets. As of filing her complaint, Wu had allegedly paid

$32,000.

¶5 On June 24, 2024, Kumar filed a pro se small claims counter-complaint alleging that Wu

owed him $5,850. Kumar asserted that Wu did not own the property and lacked authority to file a

complaint. He contended that Wu had not paid $32,000 and her claim that he owes her $10,000

was “self-contradictory and completely groundless.” Kumar also asserted that the bathroom and

kitchen floors were level, the toilet was stable, and installing molding over the cabinets was not

part of the contract.

¶6 On August 5, 2024, the trial court issued a written order entering judgment “after trial” in

favor of Wu for $3,000, with costs assessed against Kumar. The order stated that both Wu and

Kumar were present.

¶7 On appeal, Kumar argues that Wu lacked authority to file a complaint on behalf of the

owner of the property and did not provide evidence to support her claims. He also argues that the

-2- No. 1-24-1724

court order was not clear, his counterclaim was not addressed, and he “was not allowed” into a

videoconference call between Wu and the court.

¶8 As an initial matter, Kumar’s brief on appeal fails to comply with Illinois Supreme Court

Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020), which sets forth mandatory procedural rules that govern appellate

briefs. For example, in violation of Rule 341(h)(7), Kumar’s brief fails to present legal arguments

supported by legal authority to aid this court in deciding the issues on appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R.

341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).

¶9 It is axiomatic that this court should “have the issues on appeal clearly defined with

pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument presented.” (Internal quotation marks

omitted.) Walters v. Rodriguez, 2011 IL App (1st) 103488, ¶ 5. Given Kumar’s failure to comply

with this requirement, it is within this court’s discretion to dismiss his appeal. See Zale v. Moraine

Vally Community College, 2019 IL App (1st) 190197 ¶ 32. Despite the deficiencies in Kumar’s

brief, it is clear that he is challenging the trial court’s judgment in favor of Wu, and we therefore

decline to dismiss the appeal on that basis. See Epstein v. Davis, 2017 IL App (1st) 170605, ¶ 22.

¶ 10 That said, deficiencies in the record still prevent us from reviewing this appeal on the

merits. Kumar, as appellant, bears the burden of presenting a “sufficiently complete record of the

proceedings at trial to support a claim of error” so that this court may evaluate that alleged error.

See Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391 (1984) (“From the very nature of an appeal it is evident

that the court must have before it the record to review in order to determine whether there was the

error claimed by the appellant.”). Any doubts that may arise due to the incompleteness of the

record must be resolved against Kumar. Id. at 392.

-3- No. 1-24-1724

¶ 11 Illinois Supreme Court Rule 321 (eff. Oct. 1, 2021) states that the record on appeal shall

include the “entire original common law record” and “any report of proceedings prepared in

accordance with Rule 323.”

¶ 12 As stated, the record on appeal lacks a report of proceedings or any acceptable substitute,

such as a bystanders report or agreed statement of facts. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 323 (eff. July 1, 2017).

Thus, Kumar has not presented this court with a transcript of the trial or an acceptable alternative.

¶ 13 The trial court’s written judgment indicates that both Wu and Kumar were present and

judgment was entered “after trial.” Without a report of proceeding or an acceptable substitute, this

court has no knowledge of what testimony, evidence, exhibits, and arguments, if any, were

presented to the court and the basis for the court’s order. Thus, the record is insufficient for our

review of the merits of Kumar’s appeal. We therefore must presume that the trial court acted in

compliance with the law and had a sufficient factual basis for its findings. Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at

391-92; Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 156-57 (2005).

¶ 14 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

¶ 15 Affirmed.

-4-