{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-17", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e7344b", "proof": "sha256:490e92bb8c21a0d9472ebe451cdf3e0bfc7021111f691f332cc159b029b4fbb9", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Illinois Official Reports", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "Appellate Court", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "Miller v. Klingsporn, 2025 IL App (3d) 240026", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "Appellate Court", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "Caption", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "LINDSAY MILLER and DOUG MILLER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "ANDREW KLINGSPORN, DVM, and NAPERVILLE ANIMAL", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "HOSPITAL, Defendants-Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "District & No. Third District", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "No. 3-24-0026", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "Filed March 25, 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Decision Under", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Review", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Appeal from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, No. 19-AR-141;", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "the Hon. Bryan S. Chapman, the Hon. Robert E. Douglas, the Hon.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Thomas A. Else, the Hon. Robert G. Gibson, and the Hon. James F.", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "McCluskey, Judges, presiding.", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Judgment Affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Counsel on", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Colin W. Anderson, of Anderson & Uddin, P.C., of Aurora, for", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "appellants.", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "Julie A. Teuscher and Patrick M. Creagh, of Cassiday Schade LLP, of", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Chicago, for appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Panel JUSTICE PETERSON delivered the judgment of the court, with", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Justices Hettel and Davenport concurred in the judgment and opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "- 2 -", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Lindsay and Doug Miller, filed a third amended complaint against defendants,", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Dr. Andrew Klingsporn and Naperville Animal Hospital, for professional negligence and other", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "causes of action relating to the medical treatment provided to plaintiffs’ dog. Defendants filed", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "motions to dismiss and for partial summary judgment as to portions of the third amended", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "complaint, which the trial court primarily granted. After voluntarily dismissing the remaining", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "portions of their third amended complaint, plaintiffs appealed. We affirm the trial court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "¶ 3 The facts as determined from the relevant portions of plaintiffs’ complaint and amended", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "complaints, the motion filings and the various supporting documents (when those filings and", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "documents can be considered), and the procedural record can be summarized as follows.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs owned a five-year-old Doberman Pinscher named Maylee. On March 16, 2018, at", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "about 8:15 p.m., plaintiffs took Maylee to defendant, Naperville Animal Hospital, in", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "Naperville, Du Page County, Illinois, for emergency medical treatment because Maylee had", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "eaten some clothing and had been vomiting. The veterinarian on duty at that time was", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "codefendant, Dr. Andrew Klingsporn. Plaintiffs told Klingsporn that Maylee had been", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "vomiting and that her vomit had contained some clothing items. Plaintiffs stated further that", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "Maylee had a prior incident where she had eaten some clothing and had to have surgery because", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "the clothing item had caused a bowel obstruction. Plaintiffs informed Klingsporn that they had", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "insurance that would cover the cost of any possible medical treatment for Maylee; that they", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "were requesting that defendants provide any helpful or necessary treatment, including surgery,", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "that would ensure that Maylee would make a full recovery; and that they wanted defendants to", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "provide that treatment to Maylee without obtaining any further consent from plaintiffs.", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "¶ 4 Defendants gave plaintiffs a written estimate of the cost of providing the services that", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "Klingsporn was recommending to diagnose and treat Maylee’s condition and told plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "that there was a necessary down payment of $450 before those services would be provided to", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "Maylee. Plaintiffs paid the required down payment amount. After defendants received the", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "down payment, they admitted Maylee to the animal hospital for treatment. Klingsporn", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "conducted a physical examination of Maylee and took X-rays of Maylee’s abdominal area. The", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "X-rays showed significantly dilated segments of Maylee’s bowel that were suggestive of an", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "obstruction and also the presence of foreign objects that were striped and layered and that were", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "suggestive of the presence of fabric, most likely a clothing item or items. Klingsporn", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "recommended that plaintiffs hold off on surgery for the time being and wait to see if the animal", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "hospital could get the item or items to pass through Maylee’s system. Plaintiffs agreed with", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "that recommendation. Defendants, therefore, treated Maylee by monitoring her condition, by", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "giving her extra fluids and medication for nausea, and by taking her for walks.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "¶ 5 At about 2:20 a.m., Maylee’s condition deteriorated, and she became unresponsive.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "Klingsporn had a second set of X-rays taken of Maylee’s abdominal area but those X-rays were", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "not reviewed by a radiologist. At about 3 a.m., defendants called plaintiffs to tell them what", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "had occurred and to obtain their consent for immediate surgery. Surgery was conducted shortly", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "thereafter but Maylee passed away during the surgery.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "- 3 -", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "¶ 6 Plaintiffs retrieved Maylee’s body from the animal hospital, had a necropsy conducted, and", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "later brought suit against defendants. Plaintiffs’ original complaint was filed in January 2019.", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "It contained three counts against defendants for breach of contract, violation of the Humane", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Care for Animals Act (Humane Care Act) (510 ILCS 70/3.02 (West 2018)), and violation of", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "505/2 (West 2018)). Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "(West 2018)).", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "¶ 7 Rather than litigate the motion to dismiss, in July 2019, plaintiffs filed a first amended", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "complaint. The first amended complaint alleged the following four claims against defendants:", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "professional negligence (count I); breach of contract (count II), as an alternative to count I;", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "violation of the Humane Care Act (count III); and violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (count", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "IV). Plaintiffs attached to their complaint as exhibits copies of the estimate for Maylee’s", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "treatment, a receipt showing that plaintiffs had paid the initial $450 down payment at the time", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "of Maylee’s admission, and the final bill that plaintiffs had received from the animal hospital", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "showing an additional amount due for the services rendered (collectively referred to hereinafter", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "at times as the animal hospital paperwork).", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "¶ 8 Defendants filed an answer to count I of the first amended complaint and denied that they", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "had acted negligently. As to the remaining three counts, defendants filed a combined motion", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "to dismiss pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code. Defendants asserted in the motion", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "that dismissal was warranted because (1) plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently allege that a", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "contract existed between the parties and that it had been breached, (2) the Humane Care Act", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "did not apply in the context of this case, (3) plaintiffs did not—and could not—allege that", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "defendants had actually intended to cause serious injury or death to Maylee, as required by the", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "Humane Care Act and the case law, (4) the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply in this context,", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "and (5) plaintiffs had failed to set forth factual allegations that would support a claim under the", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiffs filed a response and opposed the motion to dismiss, and", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "defendants filed a reply.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "¶ 9 In November 2019, a hearing was held on the motion to dismiss. After listening to the oral", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "arguments of the attorneys, the trial court granted defendants’ motion on the section 2-615", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "grounds only and dismissed counts II, III, and IV of the first amended complaint without", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "prejudice. In explaining the reasoning for its decision, the trial court commented that plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "breach of contract claim (count II) was essentially a repleading of plaintiffs’ professional", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "negligence claim (count I) and instructed plaintiffs to amend the contract claim to make a plain", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "and concise statement of the breach of contract elements. With regard to plaintiffs’ Humane", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Care Act claim (count III), the trial court noted that the case law required plaintiffs to plead", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "that defendants had acted with the specific intent to seriously injure or kill Maylee and that", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "plaintiffs had failed to plead such an allegation. As for plaintiffs’ Consumer Fraud Act claim", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "(count IV), the trial court indicated that it was unclear from the pleading whether defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "alleged fraudulent acts were related or unrelated to defendants’ legitimate practice of medicine", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "because plaintiffs had mixed together allegations of professional negligence and allegations of", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "fraudulent conduct in their Consumer Fraud Act claim. The trial court, therefore, instructed", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "plaintiffs to redraft their Consumer Fraud Act claim so that the distinction between defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "provision of legitimate veterinary services and their alleged fraudulent attempt to mislead and", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "overcharge plaintiffs was clear. The trial court granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "- 4 -", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "complaint so that plaintiffs could try to correct the deficiencies that the trial court had pointed", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "out.", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "¶ 10 A few months after the dismissal was entered, plaintiffs filed their second amended", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "complaint, which contained five counts. In count I of the second amended complaint, plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "repeated their prior professional negligence claim, which had not previously been dismissed.", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "In count II, plaintiffs replead their breach of contract claim from the first amended complaint,", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "as an alternative to count I, and added new or revised allegations to that claim. In counts III", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "and IV, plaintiffs repeated, realleged, and incorporated by reference their prior Humane Care", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "Act and Consumer Fraud Act claims from the first amended complaint to preserve those claims", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "for later possible appellate review. Plaintiffs noted in counts III and IV that the Humane Care", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Act and Consumer Fraud Act claims had previously been dismissed by the trial court without", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "prejudice. In count V, plaintiffs added a second Consumer Fraud Act claim and tried to base", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "that claim more specifically on defendants allegedly charging for services in plaintiffs’ bill that", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "had not actually been provided to Maylee in order to inflate the bill and to cause plaintiffs to", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "pay the inflated amount.", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "¶ 11 Defendants orally moved to dismiss counts III (plaintiffs’ Humane Care Act claim) and IV", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "(plaintiffs’ first Consumer Fraud Act claim) of the second amended complaint, the two counts", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "that had been dismissed previously by the trial court and that had been repeated and realleged", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "to preserve those claims for possible appellate review. The trial court granted the motion over", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ objection. In addition to their oral motion, defendants also filed a combined written", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "motion to dismiss counts II (plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim) and V (plaintiffs’ second", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claim) of the second amended complaint pursuant to sections 2-615 and", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "2-619 of the Code. In their motion, defendants repeated the same arguments that they had made", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "in their prior motion to dismiss regarding the breach of contract and Consumer Fraud Act", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "¶ 12 Rather than litigate the motion to dismiss, in June 2020, plaintiffs filed a third amended", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "complaint, the operative pleading in this case. The third amended complaint contained six", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "counts. In count I, plaintiffs again set forth their prior professional negligence claim, which", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "had not previously been dismissed. In count II, plaintiffs replead their breach of contract claim", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "from the second amended complaint, as an alternative to count I, and added new or revised", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "allegations to that claim. In counts III and IV, plaintiffs repeated, realleged, and incorporated", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "by reference their prior Humane Care Act and Consumer Fraud Act claims from the first", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "amended complaint to preserve those claims for later possible appellate review. Plaintiffs again", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "noted in counts III and IV that the Humane Care Act and Consumer Fraud Act claims had", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "previously been dismissed by the trial court without prejudice. In count V, plaintiffs again set", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "forth their second Consumer Fraud Act claim from the second amended complaint, which had", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "not previously been dismissed. In count VI, plaintiffs added a claim for breach of contract", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "implied in fact as an alternative to counts I and II. Plaintiffs alleged the same damages in counts", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "I, II, and VI—which included the veterinarian expenses, the cost of the necropsy, the funeral", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "expenses, and the fair market value of a five-year-old Doberman Pinscher—and attached", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "copies of the animal hospital paperwork as exhibits to the third amended complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "¶ 13 Defendants filed a combined motion to dismiss counts II, V, and VI of the third amended", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "complaint pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code. In the motion, defendants repeated", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "many of the same assertions that they had made in their prior motions to dismiss. As to counts", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "II and VI (plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims), defendants asserted that dismissal was", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "- 5 -", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "warranted under section 2-615 of the Code because the allegations in plaintiffs’ contract claims", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "were essentially allegations of professional negligence and because plaintiffs failed to allege", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "sufficient facts to establish either a claim for breach of an oral contact or a claim for breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "a contract implied in fact. With regard to count V (plaintiffs’ second Consumer Fraud Act", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "claim), defendants asserted that dismissal was proper under section 2-619 of the Code because", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "the Consumer Fraud Act did not apply in the context of this case and because plaintiffs were", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "improperly trying to use the Consumer Fraud Act as a means to redress their personal claim", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "for medical malpractice. Defendants also asserted that dismissal of count V was proper under", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "section 2-615 as well because plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "Fraud Act claim. Plaintiffs filed a response and opposed the motion to dismiss, and defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "filed a reply.", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "¶ 14 In September 2020, a hearing was held on defendants’ motion. After listening to the oral", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "arguments of the attorneys, the trial court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "part. The trial court granted the motion as to counts II and VI of the third amended complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "(plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims) and dismissed those counts with prejudice. In so doing,", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "the trial court commented, although somewhat ambiguously, that plaintiffs’ claims were akin", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "to a malpractice action. The trial court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, however, as to", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "count V of the third amended complaint (plaintiffs’ second Consumer Fraud Act claim) and", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "allowed that claim to stand.", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "¶ 15 In June 2022, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on count V of the", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "third amended complaint. Defendants asserted in the motion that partial summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "should be granted in their favor on count V (plaintiffs’ second Consumer Fraud Act claim) for", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "three reasons. First, although plaintiffs claimed that defendants had misrepresented that a", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "radiologist had reviewed Maylee’s first set of X-rays and had improperly sought to charge for", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "that service, the radiologist report showed that a radiologist had, in fact, reviewed the X-rays.", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "Second, while plaintiffs claimed that they were improperly billed for medications that Maylee", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "was not actually given, plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence to support that allegation.", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "And, third, defendants contended, plaintiffs could not prove that they had suffered any actual", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "damages from the allegedly improper medication charges because plaintiffs did not pay", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "anything more than their down payment and did not pay the remaining balance due on the bill", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "that plaintiffs had received. In support of their arguments, defendants attached to the motion a", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "copy of the radiologist report, the animal hospital paperwork, and an affidavit by the animal", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "hospital’s practice manager. Plaintiffs filed a response and opposed the motion for partial", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "summary judgment, and defendants filed a reply. A copy of Dr. Klingsporn’s deposition", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "transcript was attached to both the response and the reply for the trial court to consider in", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "making its ruling. In the deposition, Klingsporn unequivocally testified that a radiologist had", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "reviewed Maylee’s first set of X-rays. Defendants also attached to the reply a copy of the report", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "of plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Douglas Kern, a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, wherein Kern", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "referred to the radiologist report that pertained to the first set of X-rays.", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "¶ 16 In August 2022, the trial court held a hearing on defendants’ motion for partial summary", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "judgment. After listening to the oral arguments of the attorneys, the trial court granted", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "defendants’ motion in part and denied defendants’ motion in part. The trial court granted", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "summary judgment for defendants on the portion of count V that pertained to whether a", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "radiologist had reviewed the first set of X-rays but denied defendants’ summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "motion on the portion of count V that pertained to the medications administered to Maylee.", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "- 6 -", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "¶ 17 Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss their remaining claims—count", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "I (professional negligence) and a portion of count V (the second Consumer Fraud Act claim)", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "of the third amended complaint—which defendants opposed. The trial court later granted the", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "motion. In December 2023, the trial court entered its final order in this case. In the final order,", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "the trial court ruled that counts I and V of the third amended complaint were voluntarily", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "dismissed by plaintiffs without prejudice with leave to refile within one year; that counts II,", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "III, IV, and VI of the third amended complaint were dismissed with prejudice; and that the case", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "was closed. Plaintiffs appealed.", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "¶ 18 II. ANALYSIS", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "¶ 19 A. Grant of Defendants’ Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "Humane Care Act Claim, Count III of the Third Amended Complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "¶ 20 As their first point of contention on appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "granting defendants’ section 2-615 motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Humane Care Act claim, count", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "III of the third amended complaint (as carried forward from the first amended complaint).", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs assert that the trial court incorrectly found that plaintiffs were required to plead in", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "their Humane Care Act claim that defendants had acted with the specific intent to seriously", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "injure or kill Maylee and incorrectly granted the motion to dismiss on that basis because", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "plaintiffs did not and could not make such an allegation in their pleadings in this case.", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "According to plaintiffs, under the applicable statute and the established case law in this", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "appellate district, proof that the prohibited harm was specifically intended by defendants was", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "not required. Rather, plaintiffs maintain, they were only required to allege that defendants had", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "intended to commit an act that ultimately caused serious injury or death to a companion animal,", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "a pleading requirement that plaintiffs satisfied in the instant case. Plaintiffs ask, therefore, that", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "we reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs’ Humane Care Act", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "claim (count III) and that we remand this case for further proceedings on that claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "¶ 21 Defendants argue that the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss count III was proper", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "and should be upheld. Defendants assert that the case law on this issue, including the case law", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "cited by plaintiffs, clearly requires that specific intent to seriously injure or kill be plead to", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "state a claim for a violation of the Humane Care Act. Further, defendants contend, because", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "plaintiffs did not and could not satisfy that pleading requirement in this case, the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "correctly granted the motion to dismiss. Defendants ask, therefore, that we affirm the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "court’s grant of the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Humane Care Act claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "¶ 22 A section 2-615 motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "upon defects that are apparent on the face of the complaint. See 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018);", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "Heastie v. Roberts, 226 Ill. 2d 515, 531 (2007). In ruling upon a section 2-615 motion, a court", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "those facts. Heastie, 226 Ill. 2d at 531. The crucial inquiry in deciding a section 2-615 motion", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "to dismiss is whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered in a light most", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief can be", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "granted. Board of Directors of Bloomfield Club Recreation Ass’n v. Hoffman Group, Inc., 186", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "Ill. 2d 419, 424 (1999). A plaintiff is not required to prove his case in the pleading stage—he", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "must merely allege sufficient facts to establish all of the essential elements of his cause of", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "action. Visvardis v. Ferleger, 375 Ill. App. 3d 719, 724 (2007). A cause of action should not", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "be dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent that the plaintiff can prove", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "- 7 -", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "no set of facts that will entitle the plaintiff to relief. Heastie, 226 Ill. 2d at 531. In reviewing a", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "trial court’s ruling on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the appellate court applies a de novo", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "standard of review. Id. at 530-31. When a de novo review applies, the appellate court performs", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "the same analysis that the trial court would perform. Direct Auto Insurance Co. v. Beltran,", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "2013 IL App (1st) 121128, ¶ 43. The appellate court may affirm a trial court’s grant of a section", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "2-615 motion to dismiss on any basis supported by the record. Fidelity National Title Insurance", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "Co. of New York v. Westhaven Properties Partnership, 386 Ill. App. 3d 201, 220 (2007).", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "¶ 23 Section 16.3 of the Humane Care Act allows the owner of an animal that has been subjected", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "to an act of aggravated cruelty under section 3.02 of the Humane Care Act to bring a civil", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "action to recover the damages that the owner sustained. 510 ILCS 70/16.3 (West 2018). Under", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "section 3.02 of the Humane Care Act, a person commits aggravated animal cruelty when he or", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "she “intentionally commit[s] an act that causes a companion animal to suffer serious injury or", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "death.” See id. § 3.02(a). The evil that section 3.02 is intended to prevent is the intentional", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "killing or injuring of a companion animal. See People v. Primbas, 404 Ill. App. 3d 297, 301", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "(2010). Therefore, courts that have interpreted section 3.02, albeit in the context of criminal", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "cases, have found that the statute requires the complaining party to prove a specific intent to", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "seriously injure or kill a companion animal to prevail on a claim of aggravated cruelty. See,", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "e.g., id.; People v. Larson, 379 Ill. App. 3d 642, 651-52 (2008); People v. Robards, 2018 IL", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "App (3d) 150832, ¶ 13; People v. Kirkpatrick, 2020 IL App (5th) 160422, ¶ 59.", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "¶ 24 We agree with the prior court interpretations of section 3.02 of the Humane Care Act and", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "have no need to interpret the statute anew. As the prior court interpretations indicate, to", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "establish a claim of aggravated cruelty, the plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "acted with a specific intent to seriously injure or kill a companion animal. See Primbas, 404", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "Ill. App. 3d at 301; Larson, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 651-52; Robards, 2018 IL App (3d) 150832,", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "¶ 13; Kirkpatrick, 2020 IL App (5th) 160422, ¶ 59. In the present case, it is undisputed that", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "plaintiffs did not and could not make such an allegation in their Humane Care Act claim (count", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "III) against defendants. We must conclude, therefore, that the trial court properly granted", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "¶ 25 In reaching that conclusion, we note that contrary to plaintiffs’ assertion on appeal, the case", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "law interpretation of section 3.02 in this appellate district is no different than in other appellate", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "districts in this state. In the Robards case, this court indicated in the context of a criminal case", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "that to prevail on a claim of aggravated cruelty to a companion animal under section 3.02 of", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "the Humane Care Act, the State had to prove that the defendant (1) intentionally committed", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "the act and (2) intended to seriously injure or kill the animal. Robards, 2018 IL App (3d)", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "150832, ¶ 13. Although this court went on later in that case to state that the evidence only", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "needed to establish that the defendant intentionally committed an act that caused the death of", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "a companion animal (id. ¶ 17)—a statement that plaintiffs rely upon to support their argument", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "on this issue, it is clear from this court’s statement of the elements of the offense and its analysis", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "of the facts in the Robards case that specific intent is required by the statute. We, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "reject plaintiffs’ assertion to the contrary and affirm the trial court’s section 2-615 dismissal of", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ Humane Care Act claim, count III of the third amended complaint (as carried", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "forward from the first amended complaint).", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "- 8 -", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "¶ 26 B. Grant of Defendants’ Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "First Consumer Fraud Act Claim, Count IV of the Third Amended Complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "¶ 27 As their second point of contention on appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "granting defendants’ section 2-615 motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first Consumer Fraud Act", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "claim, count IV of the third amended complaint (as carried forward from the first amended", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "complaint). Plaintiffs assert that the motion to dismiss should not have been granted because", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts in count IV to state a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act.", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "According to plaintiffs, the trial court’s finding to the contrary was based upon the trial court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "incorrect belief that defendants could not violate the Consumer Fraud Act in the course of", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "providing veterinary services. Thus, for the reasons stated, plaintiffs ask that we reverse the", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs’ first Consumer Fraud Act claim", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "(count IV) and that we remand this case for further proceedings on that claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "¶ 28 Defendants assert that the motion to dismiss was correctly granted for two reasons. First,", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "defendants contend that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege fraudulent misrepresentation that", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "was wholly unrelated to defendants’ legitimate practice of veterinary medicine. Instead,", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "defendants maintain, plaintiffs improperly intertwined in the pleading allegations of", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "defendants’ deceptive acts with allegations of defendants’ deviations from the standard of care.", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "Second, and in the alternative, defendants contend that even if plaintiffs’ first Consumer Fraud", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "Act claim concerned conduct wholly unrelated to the provision of veterinary services,", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "dismissal was still proper because plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to establish all of", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "the elements of a Consumer Fraud Act claim. Most notably, according to defendants, plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "failed to plead sufficient facts to establish reliance, causation, or damages, as required for a", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claim. For both of these reasons, defendants ask that we affirm the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "court’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first Consumer Fraud Act claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "¶ 29 The Consumer Fraud Act is a regulatory and remedial statute that was enacted to protect", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "individuals against fraud, unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive business", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "practices. Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403, 416-17 (2002). The", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "“[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "omission of such material fact *** in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "thereby.” 815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2018).", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "¶ 30 To prevail on a private cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act, the plaintiff must", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "plead and prove the following five elements: (1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant,", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "(2) the defendant’s intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception, (3) the occurrence of the", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "deception during a course of conduct involving trade or commerce, (4) actual damage to the", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "plaintiff, and (5) the plaintiff’s injury proximately caused by defendant’s deception. See Avery", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100, 190-91 (2005); Oliveira v.", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "Amoco Oil Co., 201 Ill. 2d 134, 149 (2002).", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "¶ 31 Despite the relatively broad language of the statutory prohibition (see 815 ILCS 505/1(f),", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "2 (West 2018)), in the context of professional services, Illinois state reviewing courts have held", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "that the provision of medical, dental, and legal services do not constitute “trade or commerce”", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "- 9 -", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "under the Consumer Fraud Act and that a plaintiff, therefore, cannot bring a private Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "Fraud Act claim arising out of the actual provision of those services. See Ripes v. Schlechter,", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "2017 IL App (1st) 161026, ¶¶ 20-21; Mathis v. Yildiz, 2023 IL App (1st) 221703, ¶ 23. A few", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "of the decisions, however, including one from this district of the appellate court, (1) have made", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "a distinction (either directly or implicitly) between the actual provision of the professional", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "services and the business aspects of providing those services or (2) provide support for", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "asserting that such a distinction should exist. In those cases, the reviewing courts have held", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "that a plaintiff may not bring a private Consumer Fraud Act claim that is premised upon the", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "actual provision of the professional services listed above (the actual practice of medicine,", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "dentistry, or law), such as substandard treatment, but that a plaintiff may bring a Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "Fraud Act claim that is premised upon the business aspects of those professional services, such", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "as misleading billing. See Falls v. Silver Cross Hospital & Medical Centers, 2016 IL App (3d)", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "150319, ¶¶ 38-40 (allowing a private Consumer Fraud Act claim against a hospital for balance", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "billing); Mathis, 2023 IL App (1st) 221703, ¶¶ 23-24, 28, 31, 33-36 (allowing a private", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claim against a dentist for misleading billing).", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "¶ 32 In the present case, the parties do not dispute that the above rules apply to the provision of", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "veterinary services. We agree and so hold. Despite that holding, we must conclude that the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "court properly granted defendants’ section 2-615 motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first Consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "Fraud Act claim, count IV of the third amended complaint (as carried forward from the first", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "amended complaint). Contrary to the rules set forth above, plaintiffs’ claim in count IV was", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "not premised solely upon the business aspects of providing veterinary services. Rather,", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ claim in count IV mixed together allegations of improper or misleading billing with", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "allegations that defendants had provided substandard care. We, therefore, affirm the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "court’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss count IV. Having so concluded, we need not", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "address the parties’ other assertions on this issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "¶ 33 C. Grant of Defendants’ Section 2-615 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "Breach of Contract Claims, Count II and VI of the Third Amended Complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "¶ 34 As their third point of contention, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "defendants’ section 2-615 motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, counts II and", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "VI of the third amended complaint. Plaintiffs assert that the trial court incorrectly found that", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims were duplicative of plaintiffs’ professional negligence", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "claim (count I) and incorrectly granted the motion to dismiss on that basis. According to", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "plaintiffs, the contract claims were not duplicative of the professional negligence claim because", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "different facts were alleged in the contract claims than in the professional negligence claim", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "and because, depending on the standard of care imposed on defendants’ conduct, defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "contractual duties could be broader and more rigorous than defendants’ duties under the", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "standard of care. Based upon their assertion that the claims were not duplicative, plaintiffs ask", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "that we reverse the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs’ breach of contract", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "claims (counts II and VI) and that we remand this case for further proceedings on those claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "¶ 35 Defendants argue that the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss counts II and VI was", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "proper and should be upheld. In support of that argument, defendants make two main", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "assertions. First, defendants contend that the motion to dismiss was correctly granted because", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims were duplicative of plaintiffs’ professional negligence", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "claim in that the contract claims and the professional negligence claim were based upon the", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "- 10 -", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "same factual conduct—the reasonableness of defendants’ veterinary care—and resulted in the", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "same injury to plaintiffs (plaintiffs sought the same damages for the contract claims and the", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "professional negligence claim). Second, defendants contend that the motion to dismiss was", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "also correctly granted because plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to establish all of the", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "elements of their breach of contract claims. Most notably, defendants maintain, plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "allegations failed to show that the parties had reached a meeting of the minds on terms that", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "were definite and certain. For all of the reasons stated, therefore, defendants ask that we affirm", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "the trial court’s grant of the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "¶ 36 Although a plaintiff is generally allowed to plead claims in the alternative, duplicate claims", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "are not permitted in the same complaint. Neade v. Portes, 193 Ill. 2d 433, 445 (2000). The", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "relevant inquiry in determining whether claims are duplicative is whether the claims allege the", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "same operative facts and injury. Id. at 443; Majumdar v. Lurie, 274 Ill. App. 3d 267, 273-74", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "(1995). “The operative facts of a claim are those facts that actually caused the plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "injuries.” Pippen v. Pedersen & Houpt, 2013 IL App (1st) 111371, ¶ 25.", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "¶ 37 In the present case, after considering the operative facts and injury alleged in plaintiffs’", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "professional negligence claim and in plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, we conclude that the", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "contract claims were duplicative of the professional negligence claim and were properly", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "dismissed. The contract claims ultimately alleged the same operative facts as the professional", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "negligence claim—that defendants failed to promptly perform surgery on Maylee for an", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "obstructed bowel—and sought the exact same damages as the professional negligence claim", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "(the veterinary expenses, the cost of the necropsy, the funeral expenses, and the fair market", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "value of a five-year-old Doberman Pinscher). Thus, as the trial court correctly indicated, the", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "contract claims were merely a restatement of the professional negligence claim. We, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "affirm the trial court’s grant of defendants’ section 2-615 motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ contract", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "claims, counts II and VI of the third amended complaint. Having reached that conclusion, we", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "need not address defendants’ alternative assertion—that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "facts to establish the required elements of their contract claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "¶ 38 D. Grant of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on a Portion", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "of Plaintiffs’ Second Consumer Fraud Act Claim,", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "Count V of the Third Amended Complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "¶ 39 As their fourth and final point of contention on appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on a portion of plaintiffs’ second", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claim, count V of the third amended complaint. Plaintiffs assert that the", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "motion for summary judgment should not have been granted as to the allegations in count V", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "that pertained to whether a radiologist had reviewed Maylee’s first set of X-rays because", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to establish the radiologist report as admissible", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "evidence for the purpose of the summary judgment proceeding. Plaintiffs contend, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "that it was error for the trial court to consider the radiologist report in making its ruling on the", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "summary judgment motion. As defendants correctly note, however, there were other sources", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "of evidence, aside from the radiologist report, that established that a radiologist had reviewed", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "the first set of X-rays, including the deposition testimony of Klingsporn, which both parties", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "submitted in the summary judgment proceeding, and the report of plaintiffs’ own expert", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "witness, which was submitted by defendants and which referred to the radiologist report. We,", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "therefore, conclude under the facts of the instant case that no genuine issue of material fact", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "- 11 -", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "existed as to whether a radiologist had reviewed the first set of X-rays and that defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "motion for summary judgment was properly granted as to those allegations in plaintiffs’ second", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "Consumer Fraud Act claim (count V). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s grant of", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to those portions of count V of the third amended", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "¶ 40 III. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "¶ 41 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County.", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "¶ 42 Affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_441" } ], "word_count": 5883, "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "a2bbe3de9ff0185594b60377073446aaad6898cce2cfc530627199e43af5ce04", "source_url": "https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/bc1d3261-425f-482a-b5ab-5ae02ed9eaac/file", "fetched_at": "2026-10-07T06:33:44.036+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "a2bbe3de9ff0185594b60377073446aaad6898cce2cfc530627199e43af5ce04", "recomputed_sha256": "a2bbe3de9ff0185594b60377073446aaad6898cce2cfc530627199e43af5ce04", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-17T21:10:26.469Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:490e92bb8c21a0d9472ebe451cdf3e0bfc7021111f691f332cc159b029b4fbb9", "version": "legal-2026-10-17", "expires": "2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33", "content_hash": "sha256:490e92bb8c21a0d9472ebe451cdf3e0bfc7021111f691f332cc159b029b4fbb9", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-17T22:10:27.402Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:illappct-3-24-0026-2025-03-25" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }