A recent court ruling has affirmed the dismissal of a complaint involving a vehicular collision, highlighting the complexities and challenges in timely legal proceedings. The complaint was filed by Meltem Tureli in the Circuit Court of Cook County on July 29, 2021, against Esther Martinez. However, due to delays in serving the defendant, the case faced significant procedural hurdles.
The case dates back to an incident on July 29, 2019, when Tureli alleged that Martinez negligently caused a collision between their vehicles. Despite filing the complaint promptly two years later, Tureli encountered issues with her legal representation that led to delays in serving Martinez. Initially represented by attorney Thomas Kantas, Tureli switched counsel to Peter Papoutsis on February 17, 2023. Following this change, efforts to serve Martinez intensified but faced several setbacks until she was finally served on June 4, 2023.
Martinez’s counsel quickly moved to dismiss the case under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b), which mandates dismissal if a plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable diligence in serving the defendant before the statute of limitations expires. Martinez argued that being served almost two years after the complaint was filed and after the statute of limitations had expired demonstrated a lack of diligence on Tureli’s part.
In response, Tureli contended that special circumstances should excuse her delay. She accused her former attorney Kantas of misconduct, alleging he lied about the status of her case and failed to serve Martinez intentionally. Supporting her claims were documents showing Kantas had admitted to other instances of professional misconduct and had sought removal from the Illinois Roll of Attorneys.
Despite these arguments, on October 6, 2023, the circuit court dismissed Tureli’s complaint with prejudice under Rule 103(b). The court’s written order did not elaborate on its reasoning beyond citing Rule 103(b). On appeal, Justice C.A. Walker delivered the judgment affirming this dismissal. The appellate court noted that without a detailed record or transcript from the lower court proceedings explaining how it weighed various factors—including Kantas’ alleged malpractice—it must presume that the trial court acted within its discretion and according to law.
Tureli’s appeal hinged on whether her former attorney’s actions constituted special circumstances excusing her delay in service. However, due to insufficient records for review and lack of detailed findings from the lower court, the appellate court could not substantively evaluate this claim and thus upheld the dismissal.
The attorneys involved were Thomas Kantas initially for Tureli and later Peter Papoutsis following his substitution as counsel.
This article was first published in Cook County Record.
