MOTIONS TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO 735 ILCS 5/2-615 AND 2-619

While “considerations of judicial and client economy” might favor the joining of all
grounds for dismissal in a single motion under Section 2-619.1, this section does not require a
party to file all of its challenges within a combined motion. Therefore, a defendant who first files
a challenge to the plaintiff’s pleading under Section 2-615 is not barred from subsequently moving
for dismissal under Section 2-619. Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corp. v. Cit of West Chicago, 355 Ill.
App. 3d 352, 366, 823 N.E.2d 610, 622 (2d Dist. 2005); River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park,
295 Ill. App. 3d 90, 93, 692 N E 2d 369, 372 (2d Dist. 1998), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on
other grounds, 184 Ill. 2d 290, 703 N E 2d 883 1998.
2. Designation Of Challenges Under 2-615 Versus 2-619
Although Section 2-619.1 allows a party to file a joint motion for dismissal under Sections
2-615 and 2-619, it does not authorize “hybrid motion practice.” Northern Trust Co. v. County of
Lake, 353 Ill. App. 3d 268, 278, 818 N.E.2d 389, 398 (2d Dist. 2004). A hybrid motion is one in
which the movant fails to designate whether the motion is filed under Section 2-615 or Section 2-
619 or otherwise fails to identify the grounds for dismissal under the separate sections of the Code.
Jenkins v. Concorde Acceptance Corp., 345 Ill. App. 3d 669, 802 N.E.2d 1270 (1 st Dist. 2003).
3. Wrong Label Not Fatal
The failure to specifically designate whether a motion to dismiss is brought under Section
2-615 or 2-619 is inappropriate, but not always fatal. Premier Elec. Construction Co. v. LaSalle
Nat’l Bank, 115 Ill. App. 3d 638, 642, 450 N.E.2d 1360, 1363 (2d Dist. 1983). Improper labeling
of a motion to dismiss under Section 2-619 warrants reversal only if the non-moving party is
prejudiced by the error. Northern Trust Co. v. County of Lake, 253 Ill. App. 3d 268, 278, 818
N.E.2d 389, 398 (2d Dist. 2004); Universal Underwriters Group v. Pierson, 337 Ill. App. 3d 893,
897-898, 787 N.E.2d 296, 299-300 (1 st Dist. 2003); Storm & Assoc. v. Cuculich, 298 Ill. App. 3d
1040, 1046, 700 N.E.2d 202, 206 (1 st Dist. 1998).
The substance of a motion, rather than its label, will determine the code section under
which the motion should be analyzed. Loman v. Freeman, 375 Ill. App. 3d 445, 448, 874 N.E.2d
542, 545 (4th Dist. 2006). Thus, where a party files a motion that purports to be filed under 2-619,
but actually attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint, the mislabeling of the motion is not fatal
and the court may resolve the substance of the motion under Section 2-615. Id.; Winters v.
Wangler, 386 Ill. App. 3d 788, 898 N.E.2d 776 (4th Dist. 2008); Worley v. Barger, 247 Ill. App.
3d 492, 807 N.E.2d 1222 (5th Dist. 2004).
SECTION 2-619 MOTIONS TO DISMISS
1. The Statute
5/2-619 provides: Involuntary dismissal based upon certain defects or defenses.
(a)
Defendant may, within the time for pleading, file a motion for dismissal of the
action or for other appropriate relief upon any of the following grounds. If the
grounds do not appear on the face of the pleading attacked the motion shall be
supported by affidavit:
6