## Facts

- Carol J. Johnson sued Bertha Saenz in the circuit court of Winnebago County, Illinois, seeking damages for personal injuries arising from an automobile accident.
- Because the amount in controversy placed the case within Illinois’s court-annexed mandatory arbitration program, the matter was set for arbitration rather than an immediate trial.
- With the complaint, Johnson served Saenz with a summons stating that the arbitration hearing would occur at the Winnebago County courthouse in Rockford.
- Johnson also served a notice requiring Saenz’s personal appearance at the arbitration hearing under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 237(b).
- The arbitration date was later continued, and the case was rescheduled for arbitration at the Winnebago County arbitration center located in Stewart Square, a separate building down the street from the courthouse.
- On the rescheduled arbitration date, Saenz did not appear at the arbitration center. Saenz’s attorney did appear and participated in the arbitration hearing.
- A majority of the arbitration panel found for Johnson and entered an award of $19,500, noting that Saenz failed to personally appear.
- After the arbitration hearing, Saenz’s attorney went to the courthouse for another matter and found Saenz sitting in a courtroom there.
- Saenz had a limited ability to speak and understand English. She had gone to the courthouse—consistent with the location identified in the original summons—and a courthouse employee directed her to a courtroom without telling her to report to the arbitration center.
- Saenz filed a timely notice rejecting the arbitration award as permitted by the Illinois Supreme Court Rules governing mandatory arbitration.
- Johnson moved to bar Saenz from rejecting the award under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 90(g), arguing that Saenz failed, without good cause, to appear in person as required by the Rule 237 notice.
- The trial court granted Johnson’s motion, barred Saenz’s rejection, and entered judgment on the arbitration award for $19,500.
- Saenz appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 90(g) by barring Saenz from rejecting the mandatory arbitration award based on her failure to personally appear, where she mistakenly went to the courthouse instead of the nearby arbitration center and her attorney appeared at arbitration.

## Decision

- The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the sanction barring Saenz from rejecting the arbitration award.
- The judgment entered on the arbitration award was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 237(b) allows a party to require another party’s personal appearance at an arbitration hearing by serving a proper notice.
- Illinois Supreme Court Rule 90(g) authorizes sanctions for failure to comply with a Rule 237 notice in an arbitration case, including barring a party from rejecting an arbitration award, but only when the failure is “without good cause shown.”
- The selection of a Rule 90(g) sanction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Barring rejection of an arbitration award is an especially severe sanction because it prevents the sanctioned party from obtaining a trial on the merits.
- “Good cause” may be shown when a party makes a genuine effort to appear but misses the arbitration due to a reasonable mistake, including confusion caused by a change in hearing location and language difficulties, particularly when counsel appears and the arbitration proceeds.
- When good cause exists, imposing the harshest sanction falls outside the range of reasonable sanctions available under Rule 90(g).

## Conclusion

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, reversed and remanded because Saenz showed good cause for her failure to appear at the arbitration center: she went to the courthouse identified in the original summons, was misdirected by courthouse staff, had limited English ability, and her attorney still appeared and participated. Under those circumstances, barring Saenz from rejecting the arbitration award was an abuse of discretion under Rule 90(g).


Johnson v. Saenz, 725 N.E.2d 774 (2000)