In re Custody of C.J., 2020 IL App (1st) 190766-U

- Case citation and parties
2020 IL App (1st) 191843‑U; No. 1‑19‑1843 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Dec. 18, 2020) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Plaintiff‑appellant: Morris Brown, III. Defendants‑appellees: Department of Employment Security (IDES), Director of Employment Security, Board of Review, and Spring Communications Holdings, Inc.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the circuit court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for administrative review where the complaint was filed more than 35 days after the Board of Review’s mailed decision (735 ILCS 5/3‑103).
2. Whether a section 2‑619(a)(5) motion to dismiss properly defeats an untimely administrative‑review complaint.
3. Whether pro se status or equitable hardship excuses statutory filing deadlines.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed dismissal with prejudice: the complaint for administrative review was untimely (filed July 30, 2019), beyond the 35‑day period that began from the Board decision’s mailing date (May 14, 2019; deadline June 18, 2019). The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court applied the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3‑103) and the Unemployment Insurance Act’s cross‑reference for Board decisions (820 ILCS 405/1100). The 35‑day filing requirement is jurisdictional; it begins to run from the mailing date of the decision (citing established precedent). A section 2‑619(a)(5) motion appropriately raises lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction where the statutory filing period has expired. The appellate court also noted (1) pro se litigants are held to the same procedural rules as attorneys and (2) equitable arguments and hardship do not cure the jurisdictional defect. The appellant’s noncompliance with briefing rules (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341) forfeited some arguments, but the court addressed the simple statutory issue on the merits.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Strictly calendar administrative‑review deadlines: a complaint and issuance of summons must occur within 35 days of the mailed decision; failure deprives courts of jurisdiction.
- Use section 2‑619(a)(5) to promptly move to dismiss untimely administrative appeals.
- Ensure Board decisions’ mailing dates and appeal notices are documented in the record; the mailing date controls when the clock starts.
- Pro se clients receive no special procedural leeway; advise them to seek counsel quickly after adverse administrative rulings.
- Remember Rule 23 orders are non‑precedential; still, the statutory principles applied are routine and routinely enforced.