Hearing on April 24, 2002
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
E. Kwan Choi etc., Plaintiff
K. Richard Keeler et al, Defendants
No. No 02 CH 4053
This cause coming on to be heard on Plaintiff's motion for Temporary Restraining Order. All parties appearing through counsel and the Court being fully advised in the premises. The Court has considered all the pleadings, affidavits and arguments submitted by the parties: Based upon the materials submitted, the court finds that
1. The Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on
the merits as to the procedures for removing plaintiff as a trustee.
2. The plaintiff has expressed an ascertainable legal right in need of protection.
3. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an immediate irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law.
It is therefore ordered that;
1. The Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is denied.
2. This matter is set for status on May 15, 2002 at 9:30 am.
Atty. No.: 90304
Name: Wallace Solberg, Michael J. Hayes
Atty. For: Defendants
Address: 321 N. Clark
City/State/Zip: Chicago, IL, Rm 3000
Telephone: (312) 245-8880.
Judge: (stamp of Sophia Hall 162, entered April 24, 2002)
Dorothy Brown, clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook Country, Illinois
What does this mean?
Yesterday Judge Hall entered a finding that she believes Kwan has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits regarding the procedures used to remove him. This means from what she has seen in the briefs and affidavits, it appears Kwan was wrongfully removed. She also found that Kwan does have "a protectable interest" which means it was proper for him to file a suit to stay on the board. Because of her views on the procedures, she did not have to address the issue of improper motive in trying to removing Kwan.
Judge Hall did not see a danger of irreparable harm if Kwan was not restored to the board for a few more weeks, so she could not by law enter a temporary restraining order (TRO). Instead she suggested we could dispose of this issue on a motion for summary judgement in a few weeks. She also indicated that, assuming she enters a final ruling consistent with her finding of a substantial likelihood of success the merits, any action removing Kwan from the board and appointing a replacement will be null and void.
While we were disappointed in not getting a TRO, that disappointment is more than offset by the finding of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. This makes us very optimistic of winning the case. However, there remains a great deal of work to do.
Judge Hall set the case for May 15 for the lawyers to report
on the status and to enter an order on how to proceed. As noted above, she suggested
that summary judgment looks to be an appropriate procedure to permit her to
make a final ruling.
Court recorder's script of the hearing