Second Order Allowing Interlocutory Appeal Fails To Save Appellate Jurisdiction
After he was injured in an accident, Juan Zamora sued his employer, Newsboy Delivery Systems, and two individuals, Cherie and Richard Payne. Zamora claimed their negligence caused the accident.
The trial court dismissed Newsboy because Zamora’s claim against his employer was barred by the Illinois Worker’s Compensation Act. The dismissal order included a finding under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) [no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of the order]. Zamora asked the court to reconsider the dismissal. That request for reconsideration extended the time he had to appeal [30 days from the ruling on the reconsideration request]. Zamora’s request for reconsideration was denied.
The Paynes filed a third-party complaint for contribution against Newsboy. About two years later that complaint was dismissed. Zamora got a second Rule 304(a) finding, and after the rest of the claims were dismissed, Zamora appealed the two year-old order that dismissed his claim against Newsboy.
The Second District Illinois Appellate Court dismissed Zamora’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because:
Once a court has made a Rule 304(a) finding, it is not necessary for the court to make another such finding when it denies a motion to reconsider … This is because the denial of a motion to reconsider is not a judgment and is not appealable in itself.
So Zamora had to appeal within 30 days of the denial of his reconsideration request. He blew that deadline, and the second Rule 304(a) finding was irrelevant.
Read the whole case, Zamora v Montiel, 2013 IL App (2d) 130579, by clicking here.