Governors State University v. State of Illinois

ORDER

RAUCCI, C.J.

This cause coming on to be heard on the Claimant s Combined Motion for Summary Judgment and Suggestions in Support Thereof, and the memorandums of the parties, the Court having heard oral argument, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, the Court

FINDS:

Claimant Governors State University filed a verified complaint seeking payment from Respondent for the sum of $6,000.00 for payment [*374] 374 54 Ill. Ct. Cl. of a Federal Court settlement judgment in that amount made or to be made to Lisa Pattara. 1

In June of 1996, Pattera filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. A Settlement Agreement was entered into in January 1997, and $6,000.00 was paid to her on behalf of Governors State University through a Self-insurance fund known as SURMA (State Universities Risk Management Association), to which the University contributes its pro rata share.

The University asserts in its complaint that the Settlement Agreement was reached in order to facilitate a quick and ef ficient resolution of (Pattera s) claim. Plaintiff s attorney was unwilling to wait the time period necessary to file a claim with the Court of Claims. Paragraph 6.

At oral argument, the parties agreed that disposition of the pending Motion would decide the issue in the case. We will treat the Combined Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Respondent s Reply thereto, as cross motions for summary judgment.

Claimant is, in effect, retroactively seeking to have us approve the settlement, and since the amount sought is in excess of $5,000.00, have us recommend to the General assembly that it appropriate funds to pay the settlement (which, of course, has already been paid). We decline to do so.

The Settlement Agreement having already been implemented, there is no issue between Lisa Pattera and the University before us. We do not have authority to make (or recommend to the General Assembly)

reimbursements for such payments.

The traditional federal court settlements that this Court considers arise when the State (or a State official) are subject to a money judgement either by settlement or after trial. It is true that we routinely serve as a conduit for such payment, and enter an order recommending to the General Assembly the payment of such funds. Had the Pattera settlement been submitted to us, it is likely that such would have been the result. Here, however, the University determined that Pattera s attorney was unwilling to wait the time necessary to file a claim with the Court of Claims. Of course, he would have to wait whether the case was settled, or he obtained a judgment after trial. In any event, we have no authority, and no persuasive argument has been made, to reimburse the University for funds paid in a deliberate scheme to evade the statutory process provided by the General Assembly.

The Combined Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied, and the case dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

1. The Claimant s Combined Motion for Summary Judgment and

Suggestions in Support Thereof is DENIED.

2. This cause is DISMISSED and forever barred.

[*375] While the caption to this case includes the name Lisa Pattara, the introductory paragraph, the prayer for relief, and the Combined Motion all reference Governors State University as the Claimant. We do not consider Lisa Pattara as a party in this Court