McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

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

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses

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: July 8, 2025 · Decided: September 30, 2025

Ruling

Granted. Eight affirmative defenses (defenses that, if proven, defeat or reduce a claim) were stricken: statute of frauds, unclean hands, first breach, and waiver/estoppel/laches were stricken without prejudice (able to be refiled); fabricated evidence, professional misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty, failure to state a claim, and abuse of process were stricken with prejudice (not able to be refiled). McGivern was granted leave to replead the first group by October 28, 2025, with status on the pleadings set for October 30, 2025.

The Motion (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, July 8, 2025)

Hadley moved under 735 ILCS 5/2-615, a statute allowing a party to challenge whether a pleading is legally sufficient on its face. He argued the defenses were conclusory and unsupported by facts, that failure to state a claim is not an affirmative defense but a matter for a motion to dismiss, and that estoppel, waiver, and laches were pleaded without their required elements. He also requested a stay of discovery and of his obligation to respond to McGivern’s pleading.

The Response (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, August 29, 2025)

McGivern argued each defense contained specific factual allegations, including dates and documents, and cited Illinois authority that affirmative defenses need only give fair notice. He argued the motion contained false statements about the case timeline and that Hadley had outstanding discovery obligations. He requested denial, sanctions, and related relief.

The Reply (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, September 10, 2025)

Hadley argued a 2-615 motion tests only the pleading, so factual assertions outside the pleadings could not cure the defects. He argued several defenses are not recognized in Illinois and that the equitable defenses omitted required elements.

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

Oral argument was heard September 29, 2025, and the matter taken under advisement. The order states no findings beyond the rulings above.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents