Maslovska v. Shigabetdinova, No. 1-25-0702 (Mar. 11, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Kateryna Maslovska v. Ekaterina Shigabetdinova
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Illinois (IL)
Court
Illinois Supreme Court
Decided
Mar. 11, 2026
Disposition
Affirmed
Majority
Reyes (Justice), joined by Martin (Justice), Lampkin (Justice)
KATERYNA MASLOVSKA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EKATERINA..., Not Reported in N.E....2026 IL App (1st) 250702-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 IL App (1st) 250702-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,Third Division.KATERYNA MASLOVSKA, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.EKATERINA SHIGABETDINOVA,Defendant-Appellant.No. 1-25-0702|Order filed March 11, 2026Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No.20242002910 Honorable Jeffery G. Chrones, Judge,presiding.Presiding Justice Martin and Justice Lampkin concurred inthe judgment.ORDERJUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court.*1 1 Held: We affirm the trial court's judgment in plaintiff'sfavor where defendant failed to provide a record on appealsufficient for our review of the issues presented. 2 Defendant Ekaterina Shigabetdinova appeals pro se fromthe trial court's order entering judgment against her and infavor of plaintiff Kateryna Maslovska for breach of contract.On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred where,among other things, plaintiff breached the contract first. Weaffirm. 3 The record on appeal lacks a report of proceedings. Thefollowing facts are adduced from the common law record. 4 On July 22, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint for breachof contract against defendant in small claims court. Plaintiffalleged that she, through her company AIM Pr Inc., agreed toprovide “marketing and branding services” for defendant andher salon business, Femme Like You LLC, over a three-monthterm. Plaintiff attached the agreement, which is included inthe record on appeal. Among other terms, the agreementoutlined a three-part payment schedule, with the first paymentdue at signing. 5 Plaintiff contended that she developed strategy, createdcontent, and established social media accounts—all ofwhich satisfied defendant. However, defendant subsequentlydemanded that plaintiff be present at the salon three timesa week for eight hours a day, which differed from theagreement's terms. Plaintiff reminded defendant of thoseterms, and defendant “recall[ed]” the first payment madevia PayPal, which resulted in “frozen funds” and “financialdistress” to plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant“made false remarks” about the quality of plaintiff's work,which defendant nonetheless continued to use. Plaintiffsought $6,000 in damages. 6 On October 28, 2024, the trial court sent the parties tomediation. The record on appeal does not reflect whether theparties entered mediation or the results thereof. 7 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complainton November 25, 2024, asserting that plaintiff lacked standingto sue for breach of contract and that defendant did notowe plaintiff any obligations. Defendant attached emails fromPayPal and summaries of Instagram posts. That same date, thetrial court ordered defendant to file her appearance, which shedid on December 16, 2024. The court entered and continueddefendant's motion on that day. 8 On February 2, 2025, the court denied defendant leaveto file the motion to dismiss and set the matter for trial.Defendant filed her list of three potential witnesses on March10, 2025. 9 On March 31, 2025, the trial court entered an orderindicating that plaintiff and defendant had appeared before thecourt, which had “jurisdiction” and had been “fully advised.”The court entered judgment in plaintiff's favor “after trial”for $3,200 with costs to be assessed. The order included ahandwritten notation: “trial conducted.” 10 Defendant filed a notice of appeal on April 16, 2025.Plaintiff then filed a citation to discover assets on April 22,2025, which the trial court struck in an order dated June 2,2025.
KATERYNA MASLOVSKA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EKATERINA..., Not Reported in N.E....2026 IL App (1st) 250702-U © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2*2 11 On appeal, defendant argues that the workproduct presented by plaintiff at trial predated the contract'sformation. Defendant also contends that she could not bepersonally liable for the agreement because it had been madebetween the parties’ companies and signed by the parties intheir official capacities. She urges that PayPal investigated thematter and found in her favor. Additionally, defendant faultsthe court's decision to exclude two of her three witnesses,hindering her ability to present her case. Finally, defendantasserts that plaintiff breached the contract first by abandoningthe project without notice. 12 As a preliminary matter, defendant's opening brief,plaintiff's response brief, and defendant's reply brief allviolate Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).All three briefs recite facts and legal propositions withoutproviding citations to the record on appeal or supportingauthorities. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).“A reviewing court is entitled to have issues clearly definedwith pertinent authority cited” and “is not a repository intowhich” the parties “may foist the burden of *** research”or examining “the record for error.” Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill.App. 3d 677, 682 (1993). 13 The parties’ briefs also appear to violate the supremecourt's guidance concerning the use of generative artificialintelligence (AI). See Ill. S. Ct. Policy on AI (eff. Jan. 1,2025). They contain in total six references styled as citationsto legal authority—four from defendant and two from plaintiff—that do not support the propositions for which they arecited or that do not exist at all. We caution the parties tocomply with the supreme court's policy, which applies topro se litigants. See Ill. S. Ct. Policy on AI (eff. Jan. 1,2025) (“self-represented litigants are accountable for theirfinal work product. All users must thoroughly review AI-generated content before submitting it in any court proceedingto ensure accuracy ***.”). 14 This court has the discretion to strike noncompliant briefsand dismiss an appeal for failure to adhere to the supremecourt's procedural rules. Gillard v. Northwestern MemorialHospital, 2019 IL App (1st) 182348, 45. However, we willnot do so where, as here, the “issues raised on appeal aresimple.” In re Marriage of Debra N. & Michael S., 2013 ILApp (1st) 122145, 44. 15 Regardless, defendant's appeal fails because she did notprovide an adequate record for this court's review. 16 An appellant must provide a sufficiently complete recordto support a claim of error on appeal. Foutch v. O'Bryant,99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984). All appellants, including prose appellants, are “required to meet a minimum thresholdin providing the court with an adequate record to reviewthe issues raised on appeal.” King v. Find-A-Way Shipping,LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 191307, 29. A record shallcontain a common law record and any appropriate reportof proceedings. Ill. S. Ct. R. 321 (eff. Oct. 1, 2021). If noreport of proceedings is available, an appellant may submita bystander's report or agreed statement of facts. Ill. S. Ct.R. 323(c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017). “[I]n the absence of”an acceptable record, “it will be presumed that the orderentered by the trial court was in conformity with law andhad a sufficient factual basis.” Foutch, 99 Ill. 2d at 392.Any doubts caused by the record's incompleteness “will beresolved against the appellant.” SMS Financial CH, LLC v.Feurer, 2025 IL App (1st) 250033, 40. “This is particularlytrue ‘when the judgment order states that the court is fullyadvised in the premises.’ ” Id. (quoting Dell'Armi Builders,Inc. v. Johnston, 172 Ill. App. 3d 144, 149 (1988)).*3 17 As noted, the common law record lacks a reportof proceedings or an adequate substitute. This court has noknowledge of the evidence or arguments presented at trialand the basis for the court's order, which was entered “aftertrial,” with all parties present, and the court “being fullyadvised.” Because we do not have an adequate record, wemust therefore presume that the court's decision compliedwith the law and had a sufficient factual basis. Foutch, 99 Ill.2d at 392. 18 For these reasons, we affirm the circuit court's decision. 19 Affirmed.All CitationsNot Reported in N.E. Rptr., 2026 IL App (1st) 250702-U,2026 WL 688284End of Document© 2026 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