Progressive Housing, Inc. v. Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Comm'n, 2024 IL App (1st) 240519-U

Progressive Housing, Inc. v. Illinois Guardianship & Advocacy Comm’n, 2024 IL App (1st) 240519-U

1. Case citation and parties
- Progressive Housing, Inc. (plaintiff‑appellant) v. Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission (defendant‑appellee); Egyptian Regional Human Rights Authority was the regional actor whose report triggered the dispute. Appellate Court, First Division (Dec. 24, 2024). Rule 23 order (non‑precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the Authority’s decision to close an investigation and publish its investigative report constituted a “final administrative decision” subject to circuit‑court review by common‑law writ of certiorari (in the absence of adoption of the Administrative Review Law in the Guardianship Act).
- Whether the trial court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to enjoin or review publication.
- Procedural sufficiency: appellant’s burden to supply the administrative record on appeal.

3. Holding/outcome
- The trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because the Authority’s decision to publish the report was not a final administrative decision. The trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed (Rule 23 order).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory construction: the Guardianship Act does not adopt the Administrative Review Law; where no statutory review path exists, plaintiffs may seek common‑law certiorari, but only for final administrative actions.
- The Administrative Review Law’s definition of an “administrative decision” requires (inter alia) an action that affects legal rights, duties, or privileges and that terminates proceedings before the agency. The court found no adversarial hearing, no impartial factfinder decision, and no language indicating a final, appealable determination. Publication of an investigative report (with opportunity to comment) did not meet the finality or adjudicatory‑function tests.
- Appellant failed to include the Authority’s report in the appellate record; under Foutch, failure to supply a complete record supports the presumption that the trial court’s ruling conformed to law.
- Procedural posture: dismissal was entered pursuant to a combined 2‑619.1 motion (attacking legal sufficiency and asserting affirmative defenses); review is de novo, but facts alleged were insufficient to establish reviewable final agency action.

5. Practice implications
- When seeking review of administrative acts outside the Administrative Review Law, establish and plead finality: show adjudicative proceedings, an agency order affecting legal rights/duties, or explicit finality/appeal language.
- Preserve and file the full administrative record (reports, closure letters, meeting minutes) — omission risks dismissal under Foutch.
- If an agency action is interlocutory (investigative report/publication), consider alternative remedies: expedited injunctive relief (showing imminent, irreparable harm), administrative reconsideration, or seeking statutory rulemaking relief where appropriate.
- Plead jurisdictional and substantive bases carefully when invoking common‑law certiorari and anticipate motions under 2‑615/2‑619.1.