DiCristina v. Dep't of Employment Security, No. 1-24-1462 (Sept. 12, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Nicholas George DiCristina v. The Department of Employment Security, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Illinois (IL)
Court
Illinois Supreme Court
Decided
Sept. 12, 2025
Disposition
Affirmed
Majority
Pucinski (Justice), joined by Hyman (Justice), Gamrath (Justice)
NICHOLAS GEORGE DICRISTINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v...., Not Reported in N.E....2025 IL App (1st) 241462-U © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 IL App (1st) 241462-UUNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULESBEFORE CITING.NOTICE: This order was filed under SupremeCourt Rule 23 and is not precedent except in thelimited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).Appellate Court of Illinois, First District,Sixth Division.NICHOLAS GEORGEDICRISTINA, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENTSECURITY, THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENTSECURITY, THE BOARD OF REVIEW, andCHRISTOPHER ST. LTD. MANHOLE, Defendants(The Department of Employment Security,the Director of Employment Security, andthe Board of Review, Defendants-Appellees).No. 1-24-1462|Order filed September 12, 2025Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 23 L50509 Honorable Daniel P. Duffy, Judge, presiding.ORDERJUSTICE PUCINSKI delivered the judgment of the court.*1 1 Held: We affirm the circuit court's order dismissingplaintiff's untimely complaint for administrative review. 2 Plaintiff Nicholas George DiCristina appeals pro sefrom the circuit court's order dismissing his complaintfor administrative review. On appeal, he argues theIllinois Department of Employment Security's (Department)determination that he did not qualify for unemploymentbenefits was arbitrary and capricious. We affirm. 3 Plaintiff worked for Christopher St. Ltd. Manhole, doingbusiness as Hydrate Nightclub, for seven years. After beingfired, he filed a claim for unemployment benefits, but aDepartment referee found him ineligible and denied his claim. 4 Plaintiff appealed the referee's decision. In a decisiondated July 21, 2023, the Board of Review affirmed thedenial, finding plaintiff was ineligible for unemploymentbenefits due to knowing, repeated violations of his employer'sattendance policy. See 820 ILCS 405/602(A)(3) (West 2022).The Board stated the employer had given several warnings inwriting before the final incident, in which plaintiff oversleptand was an hour late for his shift. It found plaintiff's assertionthat he was late “because he had personal issues, and at somepoint, had a second job,” did not demonstrate he had madea reasonable effort to remedy the reasons for his violationsor that those reasons were out of his control. See id. TheBoard's decision further stated, “If you are aggrieved by thisdecision and want to appeal, you must file a complaint foradministrative review and have summons issued in circuitcourt within 35 days from the mailing date, 07/21/2023.” 5 On September 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a pro secomplaint for administrative review in the circuit court,naming defendants the “City of Chicago Departmentof Administrative Hearings,” the “City of ChicagoDepartment of Employment Security,” the Board of Review,and “Christopher St LTD Manhole c/o UnemploymentConsultants.” He also filed a certificate of service stating hehad served the “City of Chicago Law Dept” and the “City ofChicago Dept of Administrative Hearings” by registered mailon August 15, 2023. 6 The Department, its director, and the Board of Review(State defendants) appeared before the circuit court. Afterplaintiff failed to appear, the circuit court dismissed the actionfor want of prosecution on December 12, 2023. On February13, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the dismissal. Thecourt granted the motion, finding the clerk's office had sentnotices to incorrect email and mail addresses. 7 The State defendants then filed a motion to dismiss thecomplaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(5) of the Code of CivilProcedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) (West 2022)), arguingplaintiff's failure to file his complaint within 35 days of theBoard's decision deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction toreview the matter. See id. § 3-103 (West 2022) (action foradministrative review must be filed within 35 days from thedate the administrative decision was served). Plaintiff filedhis request for administrative review 66 days after the Boardmailed its decision, which was 31 days after the statutoryperiod had ended.
NICHOLAS GEORGE DICRISTINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v...., Not Reported in N.E....2025 IL App (1st) 241462-U © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2*2 8 In response, plaintiff argued that he had “issued all of[his] documents,” including the complaint and summons, “asof August 21, 2023.” He attached an image of a certified mailenvelope addressed to Hydrate Nightclub and postmarkedAugust 21, 2023. The envelope was stamped “unclaimed” andreturned to plaintiff, the sender. 9 The circuit court granted the State defendants’ motionto dismiss, stating it was “without jurisdiction to entertainthe appeal.” Plaintiff appeals pro se, arguing the Departmenterred in denying his application for unemployment benefits. 10 As an initial matter, plaintiff's opening brief fails tocomply with the supreme court rules governing appellatebriefs. It does not contain a table of contents, a statementof jurisdiction, a list of statutes involved, or an appendix.See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(1), (4)-(5), (9) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).Plaintiff includes no citations to the record. See Ill. S. Ct.R. 341 (h)(6). He also arguably forfeited any challenge tothe circuit court's dismissal of his complaint by failing toaddress his complaint's timeliness in his opening brief, insteadrequesting only that we reverse the Board's decision. SeeIll. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (“Points not argued are forfeited andshall not be raised in the reply brief”). Further, plaintiff'sopening brief cites to cases that do not exist and wasclearly generated by an artificial intelligence large languagemodel, as it includes repetitive “refined” drafts, suggestionsfor improvement directed at himself, and the statement,“Generative AI is experimental.” 11 A reviewing court is entitled to briefs that clearlydefine the issues, cite to authority, and present cohesivearguments. Bartlow v. Costigan, 2014 IL 115152, 52; seealso Holzrichter v. Yorath, 2013 IL App (1st) 110287, 80 (“This court is not a depository in which the burden ofargument and research may be dumped.”). A party's statusas a pro se litigant does not relieve him of these obligations.Zale v. Moraine Valley Community College, 2019 IL App (1st)190197, 32. We may strike a brief and dismiss an appealfor failure to comply with the supreme court rules governingappellate procedure, which are mandatory. McCann v. Dart,2015 IL App (1st) 141291, 12. Nonetheless, as we havethe benefit of a cogent brief from the State defendants andit is clear the appeal necessarily arises from the dismissal ofplaintiff's complaint as untimely, we proceed to the merits ofplaintiff's appeal despite the deficiencies of his brief. 12 The circuit court dismissed plaintiff's complaint forlack of jurisdiction pursuant to section 2-619. See 735ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1) (West 2022) (providing for involuntarydismissal where the court lacks jurisdiction); see also id. §2-619(a)(5) (providing for involuntary dismissal of an actionthat was not commenced within the time limited by law). Wereview a circuit court order dismissing a complaint for lackof jurisdiction de novo. Green v. State, 2023 IL App (1st)220245, 17. We construe all well-pled facts as true and drawall reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. 13 Decisions of the Board of Review are reviewablepursuant to the Administrative Review Law. 820 ILCS405/1100 (West 2022); see also Carroll v. Department ofEmployment Security, 389 Ill. App. 3d 404, 407-08 (2009).Parties to proceedings before an administrative agency arebarred from obtaining judicial review of an administrativedecision unless they seek review in the time and manner theAdministrative Review Law prescribes. 735 ILCS 5/3-102(West 2022). “Because the [Administrative Review Law] is adeparture from the common law, the procedures it establishesmust be strictly complied with.” Palos Bank & Trust Co.v. Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board, 2015 IL App (1st)143324, 12.*3 14 An action under the Administrative Review Law“shall be commenced by the filing of a complaint and theissuance of summons within 35 days” of service of theadministrative decision. 735 ILCS 5/3-103 (West 2022). The35-day period starts on the date the decision is mailed.Nudell v. Forest Preserve District of Cook County, 207 Ill.2d 409, 424 (2003). The 35-day deadline is jurisdictional;if the complaint is not timely filed, the circuit court lacksjurisdiction, and judicial review of the administrative decisionis barred. Id. at 422-23. The deadline for issuance ofsummons, however, is mandatory but not jurisdictional. Id. at422. 15 Here, the Board mailed its decision on July 21, 2023.Plaintiff had 35 days—until August 25, 2023—to file hiscomplaint for administrative review in the circuit court. Hefiled his complaint on September 25, 2023, which was 31 dayslate. 16 Plaintiff does not dispute the circuit court's time stampon his complaint, which reads, “FILED SEP 25 2023.” Helikewise does not dispute that the Board mailed its decisionto him on July 21, 2023, or that the decision was mailedto the proper address. He does not claim he did not receivethe Board's decision. In fact, in response to the decision, heattempted to mail a summons to Hydrate Nightclub on August
NICHOLAS GEORGE DICRISTINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v...., Not Reported in N.E....2025 IL App (1st) 241462-U © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.321, 2023—which was within the 35-day deadline—althoughthe envelope was returned as “unclaimed.” 17 For the first time in his reply brief, plaintiff asserts thisAugust 21, 2023, attempt to serve Hydrate Nightclub meanshis complaint “was timely filed or should be deemed timely”because it “indicates an earnest and timely attempt to initiatereview, as required by statute.” He argues the “good-faithexception” applies, citing Carver v. Nall, 186 Ill. 2d 554, 559(1999) (overruled in part on other grounds by Nudell, 207 Ill.2d 409). 18 This good-faith exception applies to the mandatoryissuance of summons, not the filing of a complaint foradministrative review. Id. As discussed, the deadline to file acomplaint is a jurisdictional requirement. Id.; see also Nudell,207 Ill. 2d at 422. Unlike a late-issued summons, neitherequitable tolling nor the interests of justice can excuse a late-filed complaint. See Grimm v. Calica, 2017 IL 120105, 18.The circuit court thus correctly found it lacked jurisdictionto review the matter, as plaintiff filed his complaint foradministrative review in the circuit court 66 days after theBoard's decision was mailed, which was 31 days after the 35-day deadline expired. 19 For these reasons, we affirm the circuit court's orderdismissing plaintiff's complaint. 20 Affirmed.Justices Hyman and Gamrath concurred in the judgment.All CitationsNot Reported in N.E. Rptr., 2025 IL App (1st) 241462-U,2025 WL 2631198End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access