In a third amended complaint alleging five causes of action, Time Savers sued LaSalle Bank for breach of contract, fraud, and the like. The trial court granted LaSalle’s motion to dismiss. Although the order disposed of the entire complaint, it nonetheless contained language from Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) that permits appeal of an interlocutory order. (“. . . no just cause to delay enforcement or appeal of this order.”) Time Savers appealed the dismissal. After the Notice of Appeal was filed, LaSalle filed a motion in the trial court for sanctions against Time Savers.
Despite the pending sanctions motion, the appellate court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear Time Savers’ appeal of the dismissal order. Oddly, the appellate court pointed to the Rule 304(a) language — which was not necessary to the order of dismissal because that order disposed of the entire case — as saving jurisdiction. “We retain jurisdiction, despite the filing of the motion for sanctions, because the notice of appeal was filed from the January 25, 2006 order [dismissing the third amended complaint], which contained Supreme Court Rule 304(a) language . . . that there is no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal.”