McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

Repository of public court documents from Cook County cases 20251707919 and 2025CH05527

Defendant’s Motion for Default Judgment on Counterclaims

AI-generated summary. This entry was produced by an AI system from the court documents linked below. It reports what each party argued and what the court decided; it does not evaluate either. It is not legal advice and does not reflect the site owner’s opinion. The linked documents are the authoritative record.

Case: Hadley v. McGivern, No. 2025-CH-05527 (Cook County, Chancery Division) · Judge: Eve M. Reilly
Filed: October 7, 2025 · Decided: December 22, 2025

Ruling

The court granted the motion on December 22, 2025, after first granting a related motion to strike the answer to the counterclaims as untimely: “Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Answer to the Counterclaims as untimely is GRANTED as it was filed late without leave of court. As such, Defendant’s Motion for Default Judgment on the Counterclaims is GRANTED.” The court set a prove-up on the remaining counterclaims (a hearing at which the party who won by default must prove the amount of damages) for January 26, 2026.

The Motion (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, October 7, 2025)

McGivern requested entry of default judgment on the five counterclaims filed June 23, 2025, stating that the answer was due July 23, 2025 and that no answer, response, or motion directed to the counterclaims had been filed in the 76 days since. He argued that under Illinois law an unanswered counterclaim’s well-pleaded facts stand as admitted. He set out damages by count totaling $62,467.14, plus holdover damages accruing daily, and stated he sought documented amounts rather than the larger sums pleaded. He also requested an expedited briefing schedule.

The Response (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, October 10, 2025)

Hadley argued that default is available only where a party fails to plead or otherwise defend, and that he had appeared through counsel, responded to discovery, and filed an answer to the counterclaims and a response to the affirmative defenses on October 8, 2025. He argued that Illinois law disfavors default and prefers resolution on the merits, and that McGivern had shown no prejudice. He also argued that McGivern’s earlier motion for judgment on the pleadings presupposed that the pleadings were closed.

The Reply (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, November 6, 2025)

McGivern argued that under Illinois law a late answer filed after a default motion cannot cure a default, and that the proper procedure is a motion to vacate under 735 ILCS 5/2-1301 showing good cause. He argued the delay totaled 107 days and that no motion to vacate had been filed.

The Court Order (Judge Reilly, December 22, 2025)

The court found the answer to the counterclaims was filed late without leave of court. The order states no other findings on this motion. In the same order, the court dismissed Counts IV and V of the counterclaim sua sponte, with prejudice, as not stating valid causes of action.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents