Giving Thanks: Professional Courtesy, Persistence, and the Value of Early Motion Practice

As we enter the season of giving thanks, I’m reminded of the many things that make our work meaningful: our families, communities, colleagues, and the privilege of representing Illinois Townships. However, I’m also grateful for something that might seem less obvious: professional courtesy and the discipline of early, strategic motion practice.

Professional Courtesy in the Courtroom

Litigation is, by nature, adversarial, but it does not have to be combative. I’ve long believed that professionalism and respect among attorneys strengthen, not weaken, our advocacy. When civility guides our interactions, the process runs smoother, arguments are sharper, and the focus remains where it should: on the merits of the case.

A Case Study: Pesoli v. Downers Grove Township

In Pesoli v. Downers Grove Township (DuPage County Docket No. 2025LA572), the plaintiff alleged that he tripped and fell on a section of sidewalk near his home that he described as 'sunken, uneven, and unsafe.' He brought two claims: negligence and willful and wanton conduct, asserting that the Township failed to properly maintain the sidewalk.

The Township filed a motion to dismiss under § 2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, arguing that the complaint did not include facts sufficient to state a cause of action under Illinois’s strict fact-pleading standard. Specifically, the complaint lacked any measurable description of the defect: no dimensions, no height differential, and no aggravating factors that would make the alleged condition actionable under the de minimis rule.

We also challenged the willful and wanton count, noting that it merely re-labeled negligence as recklessness without alleging a course of conduct showing deliberate intent or conscious disregard for safety under § 1-210 of the Tort Immunity Act.

The Court’s Decision

On October 3, 2025, the Honorable Louis Aranda of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit agreed with the Township’s arguments and granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety. Both counts were stricken without prejudice, giving the plaintiff thirty days to re-plead.

In his ruling, the Court found that the negligence claim failed to allege facts sufficient to overcome the de minimis threshold. Simply calling the sidewalk 'uneven' and 'unsafe' was not enough. The complaint needed factual detail describing the dimensions or character of the alleged defect.

The Court also dismissed the willful and wanton count, holding that it lacked any factual allegations showing a deliberate or reckless course of conduct. As we argued, Illinois law requires more than adjectives; it requires facts. The Court’s order reaffirmed the foundational principle that conclusions cannot substitute for allegations in a fact-pleading state like Illinois.

Why Early Motion Practice Matters

It’s not uncommon in township litigation to hear that early motions to dismiss are 'a waste of time' or that they simply delay discovery. Some plaintiff attorneys view motion practice as procedural fencing rather than substance. However, in reality, early motions can and often do save townships and their insurers significant time, money, and resources.

This case is a perfect example. By identifying and addressing the legal deficiencies early, we avoided costly written discovery, depositions, and expert expenses on claims that were never factually supported to begin with. The Court’s order validated that approach, ensuring that only properly pled claims proceed to discovery.

Early motion practice is not about delay. It’s about discipline. It enforces the rule that a complaint must stand on its own factual foundation before public entities are subjected to the burdens of litigation. When done respectfully and efficiently, it benefits everyone involved, including the Court.

Looking Ahead

If the plaintiff re-pleads, the Township is well-positioned. Should new allegations describe a small deviation, the de minimis rule still bars the claim. Should the plaintiff allege a large, visible deviation, we will assert the open and obvious defense, which holds that public entities owe no duty to protect against conditions that are readily apparent and avoidable by reasonable care.

Either way, early motion practice has already accomplished its purpose. It clarified the issues, saved taxpayer dollars and demonstrated that strategic, disciplined advocacy pays dividends.

Civility, Efficiency, and Gratitude

Throughout this case, all counsel maintained a level of professionalism that I genuinely appreciate. That civility doesn’t always make headlines, but it matters deeply to the integrity of the process. Zealous advocacy and professional courtesy are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary.

At Judge Law, we believe that a firm but respectful approach best serves our clients and the courts. We advocate hard on the law, but we treat every case as an opportunity to reinforce that professionalism can coexist with strong advocacy.

These values were instilled in me long before I began practicing law. I grew up watching my father, Jay S. Judge, dedicate his career to defending townships and local governments throughout Illinois. His work helped shape much of the early Tort Immunity Act caselaw, and his treatise on the subject still sits on my law library shelf today.

From him, I learned that defending governmental entities is about more than litigation. It’s about stewardship. It’s about protecting taxpayer resources, ensuring fairness in the legal process and upholding the public trust. Those lessons continue to guide my practice today.

This Thanksgiving season, I’m thankful for that foundation, for the clients who trust us to carry it forward, and for the opportunity to continue serving local governments with the same integrity, diligence, and respect that my father exemplified.