McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

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

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Untimely Answer to 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 9, 2025 · Decided: December 22, 2025

Ruling

The court granted the motion, stating the motion “is GRANTED as it was filed late without leave of court,” and on that basis also granted the separate motion for default judgment on the counterclaims. The court set the remaining counterclaims for prove-up (a hearing at which a party holding a default must prove its damages) on January 26, 2026.

The Motion (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, October 9, 2025)

McGivern moved to strike the answer to his counterclaims that Hadley filed on October 8, 2025, as untimely and procedurally improper. He argued that once a motion for default judgment is on file, a party may not cure the default by filing a late answer, and must instead move to vacate the default under 735 ILCS 5/2-1301 and show good cause. He argued the delay was a strategic choice rather than oversight, pointing to other motions and discovery responses filed during the same period. He also argued the answer denied facts the court had deemed admitted on September 29, 2025.

The Response (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, October 21, 2025)

Hadley responded that striking a responsive pleading is an extraordinary remedy and that Supreme Court Rule 183 gives courts discretion to allow late pleadings on just and reasonable terms. He argued the answer joined the issues and that McGivern had shown no prejudice. He argued that McGivern’s motion for judgment on the pleadings presupposed that the pleadings were closed, and that McGivern’s motion volume produced the procedural congestion at issue.

The Reply (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, November 24, 2025)

McGivern replied that the governing test is good cause for the delay rather than prejudice to the opposing party. He argued that the cases Hadley cited did not support allowing the filing, and that an answer contradicting binding admissions is a nullity.

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

The order states no findings on this motion beyond the ruling quoted above.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents