735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/2-615

Section 2-615 permits courts to consider exhibits attached to a complaint as part of the complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss.

Dye v. Pierce · filed 2006-12-19

Exhibits attached to a complaint are considered part of the complaint and may be considered when addressing a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss.

Section 2-615 motions test the legal sufficiency of a complaint, so arguments based on facts outside the complaint cannot support dismissal.

Visvardis v. Eric P. Ferleger, P.C. · filed 2007-07-27

As Ferleger brought only a section 2 — 615 motion, and the court granted only a section 2 — 615 motion, we will confine our review to the standards for reviewing section 2 — 615 motions. Accordingly, we ignore all arguments based on facts not shown on the face of the complaint.

Section 2-615 limits a motion to dismiss to the legal sufficiency of the complaint; the court cannot consider documents outside the complaint.

Visvardis v. Ferleger · filed 2007-09-07

We hold that the court should not have considered documents outside of the complaint in ruling on Ferleger's motion to dismiss under section 2-615.

Section 2-615 does not permit a court to consider documentary evidence outside the pleadings when deciding a motion to dismiss; a party must show that the court relied on such material to challenge the dismissal on that basis.

Dod Technologies v. Mesirow Ins. Services · filed 2008-02-14

A trial court may not consider documentary evidence not incorporated into the pleadings as exhibits in ruling on a section 2-615 motion. ... Regardless of whether the report is considered a "secondary source," however, in the hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss, the trial court makes no reference to it. While plaintiff claims that the trial court "presumably" relied on the report "at least in part," there is nothing in the record to support that contention. Accordingly, we reject plaintiff's argument.

Section 2-615 does not permit dismissal based on an affirmative matter outside the complaint, such as a lender’s alleged noncompliance with HUD regulations.

Hayes v. M & T Mortgage Corp. · filed 2009-03-25

The issue of the lenders’ compliance with federal regulations was thus an affirmative matter not properly raised as a basis for a section 2 — 615 motion.

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss cannot be decided using evidence outside the complaint.

Clark v. Children's Memorial Hospital · filed 2009-04-09

Defendants’ limitation defense is not properly before us, as defendants cite evidence outside the complaint in support thereof. Evidence outside the complaint may not be considered when ruling on a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss.

A section 2-615 motion is decided on the pleadings, so the court cannot consider affidavits or other supporting materials.

Simpkins v. CSX Corp. · filed 2010-06-10

We cannot consider those fact-specific arguments derived from affidavits or other supportive documentation. The defendants’ choice of a section 2 — 615 motion, rather than a section 2 — 619 motion or a section 2 — 1005 motion for a summary judgment, controls the way both the parties may proceed and our scope of review.

On a section 2-615 motion, a court may consider documents and exhibits incorporated into the pleadings.

Taylor v. Frey · filed 2011-01-24

In ruling on a section 2 — 615 motion, the court may take into consideration documents and exhibits that have been incorporated into the pleadings.

Section 2-615 limits a motion to dismiss to the complaint’s legal sufficiency; it does not permit the court to resolve factual issues outside the pleadings.

Catom Trucking, Inc. v. City of Chicago · filed 2011-06-10

The issue of who actually has jurisdiction over Route 38, while addressed in plaintiffs' brief here, is outside the scope of section 2-615.

Section 2–615 limits a motion to dismiss to the complaint’s legal sufficiency; the court cannot resolve a factual question about who has jurisdiction over a roadway on that motion.

Catom Trucking v. City of Chicago · filed 2011-06-10

The issue of who actually has jurisdiction over Route 38, while addressed in plaintiffs’ brief here, is outside the scope of section 2–615.

Section 2-615 does not permit a court to resolve arguments about the merits when deciding a motion to dismiss.

Oliver v. Pierce · filed 2012-01-10

However, even if correct, these considerations are outside the scope of a section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

A motion asserting statutory immunity that was filed under section 2-615 may be treated as a section 2-619(a)(9) motion when the plaintiff was not prejudiced.

Sandholm v. Kuecker · filed 2012-01-20

Since plaintiff has not been prejudiced by the motions to dismiss having been filed under section 2-615, we will treat the parts of the motions asserting immunity under the Act as if they had been filed under section 2-619(a)(9).

On a section 2-615 motion, agreements attached to a complaint do not override allegations of a fiduciary-duty claim that is not founded on those agreements.

Miller v. Harris · filed 2013-02-21

Applying the same principle here, we hold that the agreements attached to the Millers’ complaint (including the 2002 Agreement) do not “control over” or negate the allegations of the complaint because the Millers’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty is not founded upon those agreements.

Section 2-615 limits a motion challenging the sufficiency of a complaint to the facts on the face of the pleadings.

Reynolds v. Jimmy John's Enterprises, LLC · filed 2013-04-02(a)

Another distinction is a section 2-615 motion considers only the facts on the face of the pleadings while a section 2-1005 summary judgment motion goes beyond the pleadings to determine if the case presents an issue of fact.

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss cannot resolve factual questions about a petitioner’s diligence.

In re Marriage of Little · filed 2015-03-02

At most, Cheri’s arguments raise questions of fact on the issue of Donald’s diligence, which cannot be resolved on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

A section 2-615 motion cannot be supported by an affidavit or facts outside the complaint.

Karen Stavins Enterprises, Inc. v. Community College District No. 508 · filed 2015-08-25

A section 2-615 motion cannot be supported by affidavit or by reference to facts not contained within the complaint.

A section 2-615 motion must be decided on the facts alleged in the complaint; affidavits and outside factual assertions cannot support it.

Karen Stavins Enterprises, Inc. v. Community College District No. 508 · filed 2015-07-17

A section 2-615 motion cannot be supported by affidavit or by reference to facts not contained within the complaint. Consequently, in determining whether the complaint sets forth a cause of action upon which relief might be granted to the plaintiff, we have not considered any of the factual allegations asserted by City Colleges in its section 2-615 motion or in its brief before this court that are not contained within the complaint.

A section 2-615 motion cannot rely on affidavits or facts outside the challenged complaint.

Karen Stavins Enterprises, Inc. v. Community College District No. 508 · filed 2015-07-24

A section 2-615 motion cannot be supported by affidavit or by reference to facts not contained within the complaint.

Section 2-615 limits review to defects apparent on the face of the complaint; courts may not consider matters outside it.

Lake Point Tower Condominium Assocation v. Waller · filed 2017-06-28

Similarly, courts may not rely on matters outside the complaint in considering a section 2-615 motion.

Section 2-615 addresses only facial pleading defects, so affidavits submitted with a dismissal motion are irrelevant.

Crampton v. Crampton · filed 2017-11-21

Because section 2-615 addresses only facial pleading defects, the affidavits are irrelevant.

Section 2-615 does not allow a plaintiff to oppose dismissal by relying on facts absent from the complaint.

Goldwater v. Greenberg · filed 2017-12-15

However, a plaintiff may not oppose a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code by ... relying upon any facts which do not appear in the complaint.

A plaintiff opposing a section 2-615 motion cannot rely on facts outside the complaint.

Goldwater v. Greenberg · filed 2018-04-30

However, a plaintiff may not oppose a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code by relying upon any facts which do not appear in the complaint.

Section 2-615 does not permit dismissal based on facts alleged in a defendant’s pleadings rather than the plaintiff’s complaint.

Boucher v. 111 East Chestnut Condominium Assoc. · filed 2018-06-14

The facts stated in paragraphs 68 through 74 of the dissent, all alleged in defendants’ pleadings, not plaintiff’s, provide grounds for granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Those facts cannot justify dismissal of count I under section 2-615 of the Code.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal on the pleadings when attachments to the complaint sufficiently establish that compliance with a FOIA request would be unduly burdensome.

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Inc v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago · filed 2019-05-17

Because the attachments to Shriver’s complaint sufficiently demonstrate that the burden of compliance with such a request outweighs the public’s interest in the records sought, dismissal pursuant section 2-615 of the Code was proper.

On a section 2-615 motion, the court may consider the complaint and its exhibits, but not outside materials.

Oelze Supply Co., LLC V. Ameren Illinois Co. · filed 2019-12-12

Any information not incorporated into the plaintiff’s pleadings as exhibits should not have been considered by the circuit court when ruling on defendant’s 2-615 motion to dismiss.

Under section 2-615, an exhibit attached to a complaint controls over allegations it contradicts and can support dismissal.

Invenergy Nelson, LLC v. Rock Falls Township High School District No. 301 · filed 2020-05-12

Accordingly, because the plain language of the 2000 Resolution does not indicate that the applicable tax abatement would run with the land, and because exhibits to a complaint control over the allegations of a complaint (Gagnon, 2012 IL App (1st) 120645, ¶ 18), the trial court did not err in dismissing Invenergy’s complaint on this basis.

Section 2-615 permits a court to review an allegedly defamatory statement included in and attached to the complaint.

McAnelly v. Gulley · filed 2021-04-14

As the language in Gulley’s correspondence was included both in the complaint and as an attachment thereto, we find this matter proper for review under section 2-615.

On a section 2-615 motion, an exhibit attached to the complaint controls when it contradicts the complaint’s allegations.

Dvorkin v. Soderquist · filed 2022-04-15

In considering a section 2-615 motion, all well-pled facts in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them are taken as true. Id. An exhibit attached to a complaint is incorporated into the complaint, and the exhibit controls if an exhibit and allegations in the complaint contradict.

Section 2-615 does not require dismissal merely because a complaint omits documentary evidence that the complaint does not refer to.

Bearcat Leasing Corp. v. Midwest Vehicle Logistics, Inc · filed 2022-07-05

However, as plaintiff asserts, the complaint does not refer to a written lease. In addition, as plaintiff argues, the exclusion of documentary evidence from the complaint does not justify its dismissal.

On a section 2-615 motion, the court considers only facts apparent from the pleadings, matters subject to judicial notice, and judicial admissions in the record.

Jones v. Sellers · filed 2023-06-16

However, Mr. Jones did not allege any harm to his clemency chances in his complaint, and our consideration of a section 2-615 motion is limited to “those facts apparent from the face of the pleadings, matters of which the court can take judicial notice, and judicial admissions in the record.”

Section 2-615 limits a dismissal motion to defects apparent on the face of the complaint; the court may not rely on facts outside the pleading.

Wells v. Reed · filed 2024-03-22

As a result, the motion may not raise factual defenses but may assert only legal defects apparent on the face of the complaint. ... In addition, the trial court considered facts outside the complaint and assumed those facts to be true, namely, that a bona fide investigation was underway and that plaintiffs’ demand was truly under consideration. Given both the reasonable doubt and the error by the trial court, we have no choice but to reverse.

Section 2-615 limits a motion to dismiss to the complaint’s legal sufficiency; the court cannot rely on factual assertions outside the complaint.

1 v. Board of Education of Lake Forest High School District 115 · filed 2024-05-30

At this stage in the litigation, we must consider only the facts alleged in the complaint and clearly established by the exhibits to the complaint. Lake Point Tower Condominium Ass’n v. Waller, 2017 IL App (1st) 162072, ¶ 10 (“courts may not rely on matters outside the complaint in considering a section 2-615 motion”).

Section 2-615 limits review of a complaint’s sufficiency to the facts in the complaint; facts supplied in a response to the motion cannot be considered.

Walters v. Ogle County Sheriff's Office · filed 2026-04-21

A trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 “may not consider facts outside the four corners of the complaint.” Liddle v. Salem School District. No. 600, 249 Ill. App. 3d 768, 770 (1993). This includes the facts plaintiff set forth in his response to defendant’s motion to dismiss.

A section 2-615 challenge to a complaint’s legal sufficiency should be resolved before a section 2-619 motion, although a combined motion may be treated as proper when judicial economy is served and the plaintiff is not prejudiced.

Kovilic v. City of Chicago · filed 2004-06-30

Instead, the City should have first challenged the legal sufficiency of the complaint under section 2 — 615. Only after the trial court determined that a legally sufficient cause of action had been stated should it have entertained a section 2 — 619 motion. Talbert, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 379. However, in cases where the interests of judicial economy would be served and the plaintiff is not prejudiced thereby, the motion shall be deemed to have been filed in the proper manner. Talbert, 265 Ill. App. 3d at 379, citing Smith v. Chemical Personnel Search, Inc., 215 Ill. App. 3d 1078, 1081-82 (1991). In this case, we will consider the defendant’s motion properly filed.

Section 2-615 allows a motion to attack defects in a pleading.

F.H. Prince & Co. v. Towers Financial Corp. · filed 1995-09-29

A motion to dismiss brought pursuant to section 2—615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2—615 (West 1994) (formerly Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 2—615)) is used to attack defects in a pleading.

A section 2 — 615 motion may raise a privilege defense, and the court may consider it when the plaintiff had an opportunity to respond and was not prejudiced.

Quinn v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. · filed 1995-11-22

Defendant asserted privilege as a defense in his section 2 — 615 motion. ... However, a motion to dismiss may properly raise the issue of privilege. Although these types of hybrid procedures which combine separate motions for joint analysis and determination have been expressly disapproved and are discouraged, we believe plaintiff was not prejudiced by this combination as he responded to the privilege issue in his memorandum.

Affidavits ordinarily are not considered on a section 2-615 motion, but the court may treat an unobjected-to affidavit as part of the complaint and accept its statements as true.

Smith v. Prime Cable of Chicago · filed 1995-12-08

Normally, affidavits are not considered in section 2 — 615 motions but, rather, in motions brought pursuant to section 2 — 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 619 (West 1992)). It does not appear that the defendants in the case at bar moved to strike the affidavit nor did they object in any other manner to its existence or use. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal and for purposes of the motion to dismiss, we will consider the affidavit as part of the complaint and will accept the statements therein as true.

A motion to dismiss should identify whether it is brought under section 2-615 or 2-619; a court may review an unlabeled or hybrid motion unless the defect causes prejudice.

Ogle v. Hotto · filed 1995-06-30

Proper pleading requires the designation of a motion to dismiss as a section 2 — 615 motion or a section 2 — 619 motion. ... Courts may review the substance of "hybrid” or incomplete motions to dismiss unless prejudice results, in which case reversal will occur (Eddings v. Dundee Township Highway Commissioner (1985), 135 Ill. App. 3d 190, 478 N.E.2d 888; MBL (USA) Corp. v. Diekman (1985), 137 Ill. App. 3d 238, 484 N.E.2d 371).

A section 2-615 motion cannot challenge a well-pleaded allegation as improbable; that challenge requires an evidentiary presentation.

Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. · filed 1995-09-29

Suzuki cannot challenge these allegations in a section 2 — 615 motion by stating that it is improbable that such acts occurred, but must await an evidentiary presentation.

Section 2-615 requires courts deciding a motion to dismiss to accept well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

Perona v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. · filed 1995-12-13

In a motion to dismiss (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 1992)), all well-pleaded facts are taken as true and all reasonable inferences from those facts are drawn in favor of the plaintiff.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal of a legally insufficient complaint even when the motion is mistakenly labeled under section 2-619.

Barry Mogul & Associates, Inc. v. Terrestris Development Co. · filed 1994-11-21

To the extent the dismissal of count II would have been proper under section 2 — 615, we will not reverse merely because defendant mistitled the motion. ... We therefore conclude that count II of plaintiff’s amended complaint was inherently defective as a matter of law and was properly dismissed.

Section 2-615 applies only to dismissal of pleadings, so it cannot be used to dismiss a motion to reconsider.

In Re Marriage of Sutherland · filed 1993-10-19

Despite the husband’s urgings, that motion to reconsider could not be dismissed pursuant to section 2 — 615, because section 2 — 615 applies only to the dismissal of pleadings.

Section 2-615 allows a motion challenging the sufficiency of a pleading; the motion is not itself a pleading.

Geise v. Phoenix Co. of Chicago, Inc. · filed 1994-08-04

Phoenix’s motion to dismiss under section 2 — 615 attacks the sufficiency of Geise’s pleadings, but is not itself a pleading.

Section 2-615 is an appropriate vehicle for disposing of an action on a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Terry v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority · filed 1995-03-31(a)

Upon reviewing both the plaintiffs’ complaint and the defendant’s motion, we find that a motion to dismiss under section 2 — 615 was an appropriate vehicle for disposing of this action.

Section 2-615(a) requires a motion challenging pleadings to specify the defects so the plaintiff can amend; grounds omitted from the motion cannot support dismissal on appeal.

Taylor v. Trans Acceptance Corp. · filed 1994-10-07(a)

A motion which objects to pleadings "shall point out specifically the defects complained of, and shall ask for appropriate relief.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 2 — 615(a).) The movant is required to specify defects in the pleadings so that the complainant will have an opportunity to cure them by amendment. (Smith v. Chemical Personnel Search, Inc. (1991), 215 Ill. App. 3d 1078, 1084, 576 N.E.2d 340.) Thus, grounds not specified in the motion to dismiss cannot be urged on appeal. (Smith, 215 Ill. App. 3d at 1084.)

Section 2-615(a) requires a motion objecting to a pleading to identify the specific defects; a party that answers on the merits without timely objecting waives a challenge to the pleading’s specificity.

In Re Marriage of Adler · filed 1995-03-23(a)

Section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that "[a]ll objections to pleadings shall be raised by motion [which] *** shall point out specifically the defects complained of.” (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615(a) (West 1992).) ... Since the appellants never moved to strike the petition for sanctions, never raised any objection to the petition in their written response thereto, and responded to its allegations on the merits, we find appellants’ objection to the specificity of the petition to be untimely and waived.

A defendant who answers a pleading waives a section 2-615 challenge to defects in its sufficiency if the pleading states a recognized cause of action.

Arora v. Chui · filed 1996-04-26

Similarly, after filing their answer, the Aroras could not attack the sufficiency of the Chuis' counterclaims via a section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

Failure to identify whether a dismissal motion is brought under section 2-615 or 2-619 is harmless when it causes no prejudice.

Woodward v. Pratt, Bradford & Tobin, P.C. · filed 1997-09-08

Where no prejudice results from such a failure to designate the motion, the failure is harmless. Premier Electrical Construction Co. v. La Salle National Bank, 115 Ill. App. 3d 638, 450 N.E.2d 1360 (1983). We consider this to be such a case.

Objections to pleadings must be raised by motion in the trial court or they are waived on appeal.

Lanterman v. Edwards · filed 1998-01-27

In addition, we note that defendants waived this argument as they never objected to, or raised below, any defect in the pleadings. In fact, defendants defended upon the issues of the existence of the warranties and the condition of the heating and air-conditioning unit. All objections to pleadings shall be raised by motion. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1996). Any defects in pleadings, either in form or substance, not objected to in the trial court are waived on appeal.

Section 2-615 governs motions challenging a complaint’s legal sufficiency; the court may treat an undesignated motion as brought under it when the parties proceeded that way.

Dinelli v. County of Lake · filed 1998-02-20

Although the County failed to designate whether its motion to dismiss was brought pursuant to section 2-615 or section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 1996)), it is clear from the record that the parties proceeded as if the motion was brought pursuant to section 2-615. A motion to dismiss under section 2-615 attacks only the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

Section 2-615(a) tests a pleading’s legal sufficiency, requires courts to accept well-pleaded facts as true, and provides for de novo review of a dismissal on appeal.

Stahl v. Village of Hoffman Estates · filed 1998-05-14(a)

A motion to dismiss under section 2 — 615(a) of the Civil Practice Act “tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading and a court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true.” Doe v. Calumet City, 161 Ill. 2d 374, 381, 641 N.E.2d 498 (1994). On appeal, the standard of review for a section 2 — 615 dismissal is de novo. Hough v. Kalousek, 279 Ill. App. 3d 855, 665 N.E.2d 433 (1996).

A section 2-615 motion is unnecessary to raise the affirmative defense of absolute privilege; that defense should be raised through a section 2-619 motion.

Jurgensen v. Haslinger · filed 1998-02-27

Had defense counsel responded to the complaint by filing the correct motion to raise the affirmative defense of absolute privilege (see 735 ILCS 5/2 — 619 (West 1996)), the section 2 — 615 motion would not have been needed at all.

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss is not a defense on the merits and does not waive a Rule 103(b) objection.

Kreykes Electric Inc. v. Malk & Harris · filed 1998-06-30

Defendants did not engage in any discovery, and attorney Malk's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint was brought pursuant to section 2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure--a motion that is never considered a defense on the merits.

Section 2-615 permits a court to dismiss a complaint that fails to state a valid claim without a hearing in open court.

Clemens Jr. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance · filed 1998-09-17

But the sufficiency of a complaint may be determined without a hearing in open court. The whole purpose of rules such as 2-615 and its federal equivalent, Rule 12(b), is to eliminate as early as possible cases that under any set of facts do not state a valid claim.

A section 2-615 motion may be decided before discovery based on the complaint’s allegations and reasonable inferences favorable to the plaintiff.

Storm & Associates, Ltd. v. Cuculich · filed 1998-08-28

At the outset, we reject Storm’s argument that the defendants’ section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss count III was premature before discovery. The question of whether a complaint states a cause of action is determined based on the facts alleged therein and the reasonable inferences favorable to the plaintiff which can be drawn from those facts.

A dismissal motion that challenges whether a complaint states a cause of action is reviewed under section 2-615 even if the motion does not specify that section.

Weatherman v. Gary-Wheaton Bank of Fox Valley, N.A. · filed 1999-06-17

Although the motion failed to specify under which section of the Code of Civil Procedure dismissal was sought, the substance of the motion challenged whether plaintiffs' complaint regarding the mortgage assignment recording fee and the escrow suspension fee stated a cause of action. We, therefore, agree with the appellate court that it should be reviewed as a section 2-615 motion (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1992)).

Section 2—615 permits a motion challenging the legal sufficiency of a complaint on its face; a motion raising defenses belongs under section 2—619.

B and B Land Acquisition, Inc. v. Mandell · filed 1999-06-23

We first note that defendant’s motion to dismiss was improperly based upon section 2—615 of the Code. A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2—615 attacks the legal sufficiency of the face of a complaint. Lawson v. City of Chicago, 278 Ill. App. 3d 628, 634 (1996). Defendant’s motion did not do so; instead, it raised defenses that purportedly negated plaintiffs cause of action. Therefore, the motion should have been brought under section 2—619 of the Code.

Section 2-615 provides a separate motion to challenge the legal sufficiency of a counterclaim after leave to file it has been granted.

Skolnick v. Altheimer & Gray · filed 2000-03-23

In any event, the Skolnicks’ attack on the legal sufficiency of the counterclaim, when Kass was merely seeking leave to file the pleading, was premature. As the Skolnicks conceded, the proper vehicle to challenge the merits of the counterclaim is a separate section 2 — 615 motion, properly filed after leave was given to file the counterclaim.

A motion challenging a complaint's legal sufficiency may be treated as a section 2-615 motion even if styled as a motion for summary judgment.

Ganci v. Washington Changed from Rule 23 Order to Opinion · filed 2001-01-17(a)

We conclude that defendants' motion as to count I should be considered a section 2-615 motion to dismiss and not a motion for summary judgment.

Section 2-615 tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency based on its face and admits all well-pleaded facts; an untimeliness challenge belongs under section 2-619.

Lipinski v. Martin J. Kelly Oldsmobile, Inc. · filed 2001-10-19

As plaintiff correctly states, although defendants filed their motions to dismiss pursuant to section 2 — 615, the motion to dismiss count II as untimely should have been filed pursuant to section 2 — 619 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 619 (West 1998)). A section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss admits all well-pleaded facts and attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint, alleging only defects on the face of the complaint.

Section 2-615 provides the motion for challenging a defective amended pleading after the amendment has been allowed.

Fischer v. Senior Living Properties, L.L.C. · filed 2002-04-30

Objecting to a motion for leave to amend is not the mechanism for challenging a defective pleading; the mechanism is the filing of a section 2-615 motion after the amendment has been allowed.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. Combining that request with a request for summary judgment makes the motion an improper hybrid, but correction is unnecessary when the designation causes no prejudice.

Morris v. Illinois · filed 2003-01-21

Section 2 — 615 authorizes dismissal where the complaint fails to state a cause of action. ... Thus, Ameritech presented an improper hybrid motion. ... However, we need not remand for correction of the motion because Morris suffered no prejudice from the improper designation of the motion.

Failure to plead a cause of action is a section 2-615 ground; confusing it with a section 2-619 ground warrants reversal only if the opposing party was prejudiced.

Universal Underwriters Group v. Pierson · filed 2003-03-17

Finally, Pierson argues that the trial court committed reversible error in granting Universal’s motion to dismiss because, though seeking relief under section 2 — 619 of our Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 619 (West 1998)), the motion’s introduction included the words “for failure to plead a cause of action,” a defect properly raised under a different Code section, section 2 — 615 (735 ILCS 5/2— 615 (West 1998)). We are unpersuaded by this argument. Improper labeling of a motion to dismiss warrants reversal only if the nonmoving party has been prejudiced by the error. Storm & Associates, Ltd. v. Cuculich, 298 Ill. App. 3d 1040, 1046 (1998). ... Consequently, Pierson has demonstrated no prejudice from the minimal misstatement in Universal’s motion, we can conceive none, and we find no reversible error in the trial court’s ruling on the motion.

Section 2-615 is the proper way to challenge a defect apparent on the face of a pleading, including an incorrect statutory citation.

Kyles v. Maryville Academy · filed 2005-06-27

This is a challenge more appropriately raised in a pleadings motion under section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 2002)), rather than in a fact motion for summary judgment.

Section 2-615 is a less appropriate basis than section 2-619(a)(5) for dismissing a claim as untimely.

Reyes v. Walker · filed 2005-07-06

We note that defendants’ motion to dismiss and the trial court’s dismissal more properly should have been based on section 2 — 619(a)(5), rather than section 2 — 615, of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2— 619(a)(5) (West 2002) (grounds for dismissal when the cause of action was not commenced within the time limited by law)).

Section 2-615(a) is the proper basis for a motion arguing that a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim.

Country Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carr · filed 2006-07-14(a)

As to count I, Vogelzang asserts Carr did not state a claim for negligence in that the facts do not establish a duty. Vogelzang is not asserting Carr sufficiently pleaded negligence, including a duty, but that negligence is defeated by a certain defect or defense. Vogelzang's argument should have been brought under section 2-615.

On a section 2-615 motion, the court accepts well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true and grants dismissal if the complaint still fails to state a claim when viewed favorably to the plaintiff.

Maag v. Illinois Coalition for Jobs, Growth & Prosperity · filed 2006-11-02

When ruling on a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. ... If, after viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint fails to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted, the motion should be granted.

Section 2-615 provides the motion for challenging a pleading’s sufficiency; a claim cannot be dismissed for pleading defects that were not challenged.

Cordts v. Chicago Tribune Co. · filed 2006-12-07

However, despite these formal defects, neither defendants nor the circuit court ever challenged the sufficiency of Cordts’s allegations under the Confidentiality Act and, therefore, the claim is not now dismissible on that basis. ... Finally, because we have found that Cordts did, in fact, attempt to state a claim based on the Confidentiality Act, and because that claim’s sufficiency was not challenged by way of a section 2 — 615 motion, we need not address whether the Confidentiality Act has preempted the common law action of invasion of privacy through public disclosure of private facts in the context of mental health information.

A section 2-615 motion to strike an affirmative defense tests whether its pleaded facts establish a legally cognizable defense.

In re: Marriage of Miller · filed 2006-12-12

Because this matter was disposed of at the trial level in response to the defendant's motion to strike pursuant to section 2-615, the question before this court is whether the defendant's affirmative defense of laches alleged facts sufficient to constitute a legally cognizable defense. ... We, therefore, conclude that defendant failed to allege sufficient facts to raise the affirmative defense of laches for the period after the complaint was filed. Accordingly, the circuit court properly struck the defendant's affirmative defense of laches for that period.

Section 2-615 is the procedure for challenging defects on the face of a pleading; a summary judgment motion cannot substitute for it.

Fox v. Heimann · filed 2007-07-10

A summary judgment motion may not be used as a substitute for a section 2 — 615 motion asserting defects appearing on the face of the pleading.

Section 2-615 motions test the legal sufficiency of a complaint on its pleadings and admit its well-pleaded facts.

Pantoja-Cahue v. Ford Motor Credit Company · filed 2007-07-18

A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to section 2-615 is based on the pleadings rather than the underlying facts. ... It admits all well-pleaded facts appearing on the face of the complaint and attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint, alleging only defects on the face of the complaint.

A motion challenging the legal sufficiency of a complaint is treated as a section 2-615 motion regardless of its label.

Winters v. Wangler · filed 2008-11-26

Although Wangler improperly labeled his motion to dismiss as a section 2-619(a)(4) motion, we will review the substance of Wangler's motion under section 2-615 of the Civil Code, the section under which it should have been filed.

Section 2-615 addresses whether a complaint states a cause of action, and the court will not decide that issue when the defendant moved only under section 2-619 and the plaintiff has had no opportunity to amend.

Barber v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2010-02-11

We will not analyze defendant's motion under section 2-615, where plaintiff has not once amended her complaint, where the trial court may have freely granted her leave to amend in order to correct any deficiency, where defendant did not move pursuant to section 2-615, and where the trial court did not analyze defendant's motion on that basis.

A motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds is treated under section 2-619(a)(5), even if labeled as a section 2-615 motion.

Water Tower Realty Co. v. Fordham 25 E. Superior, L.L.C · filed 2010-09-29

Although Fordham labeled its motion to dismiss as a motion brought under section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2008)), section 2-619(a)(5) applies to motions to dismiss complaints for violation of statutes ... of limitation.

A dismissal based on statutory immunity is treated as a section 2-619 dismissal, even when the motion was brought under section 2-615.

Greene v. Wood River Trust · filed 2013-10-25

Although the trial court dismissed the negligence counts in plaintiff's second amended complaint based on defendants' section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the dismissal was actually pursuant to section 2-619.

Section 2-615 governs motions challenging the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on allegations on its face.

Vicars-Duncan v. Tactikos · filed 2014-08-27

Because defendant's argument challenges the legal sufficiency of plaintiff's complaint based on allegations appearing on its face, and does not assert her claim is completely defeated by an affirmative matter outside the complaint, defendant's motion should have been raised under section 2-615 of the Code.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal for failure to state a claim; failure to identify it as the basis for a motion does not require reversal unless the nonmovant is prejudiced.

Krause v. USA Docufinish · filed 2015-04-23

Moreover, because the resolution of the motion depends entirely on an issue of statutory ... construction, the same analysis will apply regardless of whether the motion were treated as a section 2-615 motion for failure to state a claim or a section 2-619(a)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, USA DocuFinish’s failure to properly designate its motion did not prejudice the plaintiff.

Section 2-615(a) requires objections to pleadings to be raised by motion; a party who does not move to object forfeits the objection.

Szafranski v. Dunston · filed 2015-06-12(a)

However, she never filed a motion objecting to his pleading at any time before, during or after the trial. 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2012) (noting that "[a]ll objections to pleadings shall be raised by motion"); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-612(c) (West 2012) ("[a]ll defects in pleadings, either in form or substance, not objected to in the trial court are waived"). Under ... the circumstances, she has forfeited her objection to Jacob's failure to state a claim based on the Informed Consent. See 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2012).

Section 2-615(a) requires objections to pleadings to be raised by motion; an objection to a failure to state a claim is forfeited if no motion is filed.

Szafranski v. Dunston · filed 2015-06-30(a)

However, she never filed a motion objecting to his pleading at any time before, during or after the trial. 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2012) (noting that "[a]ll objections to pleadings shall be raised by motion"); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-612(c) (West 2012) ("[a]ll defects in pleadings, either in form or substance, not objected to in the trial court are waived").

Section 2-615(a) requires objections to pleadings to be raised by motion; failing to do so forfeits the objection.

Szafranski v. Dunston · filed 2015-08-07(a)

However, she never filed a motion objecting to his pleading at any time before, during or after the trial. 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2012) (noting that “[a]ll objections to pleadings shall be raised by motion”); see also 735 ILCS 5/2-612(c) (West 2012) (“[a]ll defects in pleadings, either in form or substance, not objected to in the trial court are waived”). Under the circumstances, she has forfeited her objection to Jacob’s failure to state a claim based on the Informed Consent. See 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2012).

Treating a section 2-615 motion as a section 2-619 motion does not require reversal when the opposing party suffers no prejudice.

In re Marriage of Lewin · filed 2018-05-30

Because Fanny could not present any extrinsic evidence to support her interpretation of the MSA, she could not have been prejudiced by the trial court’s treatment of the section 2-615 motion as a section 2-619(a)(9) motion.

Treating a section 2-615 motion as a section 2-619 motion does not require reversal when the nonmoving party suffers no prejudice.

In re Marriage of Lewin · filed 2018-09-26

Because Fanny could not present any extrinsic evidence to support her interpretation of the MSA, she could not have been prejudiced by the trial court’s treatment of the section 2-615 motion as a section 2-619(a)(9) motion.

A dismissal motion mistakenly labeled under section 2-615 may proceed under section 2-619 when its arguments invoke that section and the plaintiff suffers no prejudice.

Tielke v. Auto Owners Insurance Co. · filed 2019-08-21

The misdesignation of the motion as being brought pursuant to section 2-615 was not fatal to Auto Owners’ right to prevail where plaintiff suffered no prejudice due to the error.

A section 2-615 dismissal is reviewed de novo; a motion raising affirmative matter to defeat a claim is more appropriately brought under section 2-619.

Ammons v. Canadian National Ry. Co. · filed 2019-12-19

The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s order dismissing Wisconsin Central’s counterclaims pursuant to plaintiffs’ motion under section 2-615 of the Code. Although the motion to dismiss would have been more appropriately filed under section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016)) because plaintiffs’ motion sought to raise an affirmative matter seeking to avoid the legal effect of or defeat the claim, our review of a dismissal under either section is de novo.

Section 2-615 provides the procedure for challenging defects in a complaint at the trial level, where the plaintiff can amend the pleading to cure them.

Village of Orion v. Hardi · filed 2020-01-13

While invoking this legal maxim, defendants point out that the Village failed to plead that the cats being sheltered in their home were over the age of six months as required by the ordinance. However, this matter is properly raised at the trial level in a section 2-615 motion. Raising this matter now after advancing what in substance was a section 2-619 motion below undoubtedly prejudices the nonmoving party. If it was clear that defendants wished to attack the factual pleadings, the Village could have amended the pleadings to cure these defects.

Section 2-615(a) requires objections to pleadings to be raised by motion.

People v. Howe · filed 2020-03-13(a)

However, as previously stated, the Intervenor’s response is not only improperly pleaded as a motion to dismiss, it is not properly designated under which section he is seeking dismissal. “All objections to pleadings shall be raised by motion.”

Section 2-615 is not the appropriate procedure for a motion that raises an affirmative matter to defeat a claim; that motion belongs under section 2-619.

Ammons v. Canadian National Ry. Co. · filed 2021-02-05

Although the motion to dismiss would have been more appropriately filed under section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016)) because plaintiffs’ motion sought to raise an affirmative matter seeking to avoid the legal effect of or defeat the claim, our review of a dismissal under either section is de novo.

Section 2-615 requires a motion to dismiss to specify the defects in the complaint; a supporting memorandum identifying the claims and explaining their pleading deficiencies can satisfy that requirement.

Agrawal v. Global Tel Link Corp. · filed 2025-04-10(a), (b)

True enough, a motion to dismiss must “point out specifically the defects complained of” and “specify” the part of the complaint that “is insufficient.” 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a), (b) (West 2022). ... Forfeiture aside, we find that GTL’s motion to dismiss was not formally deficient. It was supported by a memorandum of law in which GTL identified the claims it believed that Agrawal was attempting to assert and explained why, in its view, Agrawal had not adequately pleaded one or more essential elements of those claims.

A preemption motion brought under section 2-615 may be treated as a section 2-619 motion when the improper designation causes no prejudice.

Valadez v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC · filed 2025-06-27

The dismissal motion was brought pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2022)). The preemption of Illinois law by federal law is generally considered “affirmative matter” properly raised under section 2-619. Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill. 2d 469, 487 (1994). Because plaintiff has shown no prejudice by the improper designation, we will treat the motion as if it had been brought pursuant to section 2-619.

Section 2-615 addresses defects in a complaint’s legal sufficiency apparent on its face; improper venue is not a basis for dismissal under it.

White v. City of Alton · filed 2026-02-17

Although the court invoked section 2-615, which “challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face,” (Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422, 429 (2006)), the court made no findings as to the sufficiency of the complaint, or whether any such deficiencies could be cured by repleading. ... Improper venue, however, is not an appropriate basis for dismissal.

Section 2-615 generally does not permit a party to raise affirmative matters outside the complaint; a motion raising standing as an affirmative defense is treated under section 2-619.

Hamilton v. Conley · filed 2005-04-06

In a section 2 — 615 motion, unlike in a section 2 — 619 motion, a party generally may not raise affirmative matters outside of the four corners of the complaint. ... Thus, notwithstanding defendants’ labeling their motion to dismiss as a combined motion under both sections 2 — 615 and 2 — 619, defendants’ motion to dismiss was in fact a section 2 — 619 motion only.

Section 2-615 permits an affirmative defense in a motion to dismiss only when the defense appears on the face of the complaint.

ADVOCATE HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP. v. Bank One, NA · filed 2004-04-19

We agree that the motion to dismiss should have been designated as the latter type of motion, because the bank was not arguing that the complaint provided insufficient facts to state a claim under section 4 — 401 of the UCC but, rather, that additional facts outside the face of the complaint established an affirmative defense under section 3 — 404(a) of the UCC which completely overcame the otherwise valid claim.

Section 2-615 permits an affirmative defense to be stricken when it is substantially insufficient in law, and the ruling is reviewed de novo.

Bogner v. Villiger · filed 2003-08-29

Here, the plaintiffs moved pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 1998)) to strike the affirmative defense of laches claiming that “[t]he defense is substantially insufficient in law.” ... Rather, it granted a motion to strike finding that laches was inadequate as a matter of law. ... Accordingly, the proper standard of review is de novo.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal for late filing when a statutory deadline is a condition of the right to sue and the complaint’s allegations show the deadline was missed.

Paxson v. Board of Education of School District No. 87 · filed 1995-12-08

In this case, the Open Meetings Act itself set forth the 45-day period of limitations, and thus the time in which to file is a condition of liability. Therefore, since plaintiffs’ cause of action necessarily exists subject to that limitation, plaintiffs must allege that they have filed their suit within the prescribed period. As such, defendants may properly challenge this complaint on the basis of late filing pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 1992).) Accordingly, we assign no error to the circuit court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice solely because defendants moved for dismissal under section 2 — 615.

Section 2-615 permits a defendant to raise laches when the delay is apparent on the face of the complaint and the motion identifies that defect.

Lee v. City of Decatur · filed 1994-01-27

Given these facts, defendants’ defense of laches was appropriately raised in their section 2 — 615 motions to dismiss.

Section 2-615 tests the legal sufficiency of pleadings, including affirmative defenses.

Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis v. Dorr · filed 1993-09-09

A review of the record, however, reveals that in reality the parties and the court dealt with the issue regarding the propriety of the affirmative defenses as if the issue were raised in a motion to dismiss under section 2 — 615 (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 1992)). ... As the proceedings below and the arguments on appeal were actually conducive to a motion to dismiss, we affirm the decision of the trial court striking defendants’ fourth, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses.

A section 2-615 motion cannot properly raise lack of standing as an affirmative defense.

Kaden v. Kagann · filed 1994-04-22

Since the defendants brought a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss, the affirmative defense of lack of standing was not properly raised before the trial court.

Section 2-615 permits a laches defense when the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.

Summers v. Village of Durand · filed 1994-11-22

Where loches is apparent from the face of the complaint, it is a proper subject for a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss.

A motion brought under section 2-615 that also raises a statute of limitations defense should be brought under section 2-619(a)(5) as well.

Waters v. Reingold · filed 1996-03-22

Although defendant’s motion to dismiss was brought pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 1992)), that motion also sought dismissal based on the statute of limitations and thus should have been brought pursuant to section 2 — 619(a)(5) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2 — 619(a)(5) (West 1992)) as well.

Section 2-615 is not the proper basis for a motion to dismiss based on an affirmative defense such as the statute of limitations.

Cosman v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 1996-11-14

We note that defendants’ motions under section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure should have been brought under section 2 — 619. Defendants rely on "affirmative matter” — the statute of limitations — to defeat plaintiffs’ claims.

A section 2-615 motion challenges a complaint’s legal sufficiency; lack of standing is an affirmative defense that cannot properly be raised through that motion.

Kaden v. Pucinski · filed 1997-04-16

Lack of standing is an affirmative defense which is properly brought forth in a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 1994)). Since defendant here has raised this affirmative defense in a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we find that it was improperly advanced.

Section 2-615 permits an affirmative defense to support dismissal when the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.

Sarno v. Akkeron · filed 1997-08-29

It has been held, however, that where an affirmative defense is apparent from the face of the complaint, it is a proper subject for a section 2 — 615 motion. ... Nonetheless, as we state below, we do not agree that the defense of collateral estoppel was apparent from the face of the pleadings in this case.

Laches may be raised in a section 2-615 motion to dismiss when it is apparent on the face of the complaint.

Szymanski v. Glen of South Barrington Property Owners Ass'n · filed 1997-12-29

As discussed above, loches is apparent from the face of plaintiffs’ complaint, and therefore we hold the trial court properly granted defendants’ section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss.

An affirmative defense supports a section 2-615 motion to dismiss only if it is apparent on the face of the complaint.

R & B Kapital Development, LLC v. North Shore Community Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2005-06-21

Since the affirmative defenses of waiver and estoppel do not appear on the face of the complaint, the circuit court erred when it granted Chicago Title’s section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss.

A section 2-615 motion tests a pleading’s legal sufficiency and cannot raise an affirmative factual defense.

Lee v. Findley · filed 2005-09-26

However, Findley’s motion to dismiss (which he concedes was brought under section 2 — 615 of the Civil Code, not section 2 — 619(a) (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615, 2 — 619(a) (West 2002))) attacked the legal sufficiency of Lee’s petition. His motion did not raise an affirmative factual defense to negate or refute Lee’s cause of action, as would a section 2 — 619 motion.

Section 2-615 tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency based on defects apparent on its face; a defendant cannot raise federal preemption as an affirmative defense in such a motion.

City of Chicago v. Comcast Cable Holdings · filed 2007-05-17

A section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face. ... Defendants improperly raised the affirmative defense of preemption in their section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss and their motion was defective in this respect.

Section 2-615 tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face; an affirmative defense of federal preemption cannot properly be raised in that motion.

City of Chicago v. COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS · filed 2007-08-23

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (Code) challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face. ... Defendants improperly raised the affirmative defense of preemption in their section 2-615 motion to dismiss and their motion was defective in this respect.

An affirmative defense may be raised in a section 2–615 motion when the complaint establishes the defense on its face and alleges no facts negating it.

K. Miller Construction Compay, Inc. v. McGinnis · filed 2010-09-23

An affirmative defense may be raised in a section 2–615 motion where the defense is “established by the facts apparent on the face of the complaint” and no other facts alleged in the complaint negate the defense.

Section 2-615 permits a defendant to challenge a complaint’s legal sufficiency based on an affirmative defense apparent on its face.

Filmore v. Walker · filed 2013-04-17

If the affirmative defense already is apparent on the face of the complaint, the defendant need not plead the affirmative defense as an affirmative defense but instead may challenge the legal sufficiency of the complaint, pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2008)).

Section 2-615 permits a defendant to raise an affirmative defense in a motion to dismiss when the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint.

O'Callaghan v. Satherlie · filed 2015-07-08

As a result, a defendant may properly raise an affirmative defense in a section 2-615 motion if the defense is apparent from the face of the complaint. ... Because the absolute attorney litigation privilege appears on the face of the complaint, the motion was appropriately filed under section 2-615.

Section 2-615 permits an affirmative defense to be raised in a motion to dismiss when the defense is apparent from the complaint and no allegations negate it.

Webb v. Holmes · filed 2019-02-04

In addition, even if section 1 of the Attorney Act was affirmative matter that could be raised in a section 2-619(a)(9) motion to dismiss, defendant still would have been able to properly raise that matter in her section 2-615 motion in the instant case because the factual basis of that affirmative defense was set forth in the allegations contained in plaintiff’s own complaint wherein plaintiff alleged that pursuant to the parties’ agreement, he was entitled to a percentage of the defendant’s federal settlement for legal services he had performed. See id.; K. Miller Construction Co. v. McGinnis, 238 Ill. 2d 284, 291-92 (2010) (recognizing that an affirmative defense may be properly raised in a section 2-615 motion to dismiss when the defense is established by the facts apparent on the face of the complaint and no other facts alleged in the complaint negate the defense).

Section 2-615 permits dismissal when the complaint shows that the claims are time-barred.

Johnson v. Harbour Portfolio VII, LP · filed 2020-06-23

Based on the record before us, and with these legal concepts in mind, we find that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ cause of action here pursuant to section 2-615, as their claims are time-barred.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal when a petition fails to allege facts showing that the petitioner exhausted required administrative remedies.

People v. McVeay · filed 2021-03-02

The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a basis for dismissal under either section 2-615 or 2-619(a)(9). ... Thus, under any pleading standard, the trial court properly dismissed McVeay’s petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal when a plaintiff admits failing to exhaust required administrative remedies and no set of facts would entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Curry v. Jeffreys · filed 2021-10-07

Having admitted his failure to pursue his administrative remedies, it is clear no set of facts can be proved that would entitle Curry to recover. See Henderson Square, 2015 IL 118139, ¶ 61. Therefore, defendant’s section 2-615 motion was properly granted.

Section 2-615 permits a limitations defense when untimeliness appears on the face of the complaint; exhibits offered merely as evidence do not override conflicting factual allegations.

Bulczak v. Alden Poplar Creek Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center, Inc. · filed 2024-05-16

But “where it appears from the face of the complaint that the ... statute of limitations has run,” a motion to dismiss on limitations grounds can be properly raised in a section 2-615 motion to dismiss a legally insufficient pleading. ... The exhibits to the complaint are merely evidence supporting the Estate’s allegations. Hence, although three of those exhibits recite May 23, 2019, as the date of the injury, they do not control over the complaint’s allegation that the injury occurred on May 25, 2019. We agree with the Estate that, for the purpose of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, the complaint’s allegation should have been taken as true.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal based on the absolute litigation privilege when the privilege is apparent from the pleading and its attachments.

Qualizza v. Freeman · filed 2024-07-26

Section 2-615 can be an appropriate vehicle for a defendant to assert the absolute litigation privilege, however, if the privilege’s application is apparent on the face of the pleading and any attachments thereto.

Section 2-615 does not provide a basis to dismiss a declaratory judgment action because a related action was filed earlier; that issue is addressed under section 2-619(a)(3).

Record-A-Hit v. National Fire Insurance · filed 2007-11-13

Whether a prior filed action involving the same issues instituted by either the insured-tortfeasor or the insurer might form the basis of a dismissal or stay of the claimant’s action is a matter to be resolved pursuant to section 2-619(a)(3) of the Code, not section 2-615.

A court should generally allow amendment of an insufficient complaint rather than dismiss it with prejudice under section 2-615.

Roy v. Coyne · filed 1994-02-15

While the granting of a section 2-615 motion is within the sound discretion of the trial court, where a complaint does not allege a cause of action properly, the general course is to allow leave liberally to amend rather than to dismiss a claim with prejudice.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice when a complaint presents only a question of law and amendment cannot cure the defect.

Oakley Transport, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance · filed 1995-03-31

If a review of those allegations discloses that all of the claims are beyond coverage, an insurer is justified in refusing to defend. The court may then properly dismiss the action under section 2 — 615 for failure to state a cause of action, and such dismissal may be with prejudice because an insured cannot alter the terms of the policy or disavow the allegations in the underlying complaint in a subsequent pleading.

Under section 2-615, a correctable pleading defect should not support affirming dismissal when the plaintiff likely would have been allowed to amend the complaint below.

Dewitt v. McHenry County · filed 1998-01-13

The supreme court has cautioned against affirming the dismissal of a complaint on the basis of a correctable pleading defect where it is likely that plaintiffs would have been given a chance to amend the complaint if the defect had been addressed below. Geaslen v. Berkson, Gorov & Levin, Ltd., 155 Ill. 2d 223, 230 (1993). We believe Geaslen applies here, where the trial court expressed its willingness to allow plaintiff to amend the complaint.

Section 2-615 does not permit dismissal with prejudice when the allegations could support a claim if repleaded.

Jarvis v. South Oak Dodge, Inc. · filed 2001-03-23

However, upon examination of the allegations of fraud incorporated into count iy we cannot say that there is no set of facts under which the Jarvises could state a cause of action for rescission against Gold Key. We therefore reverse that portion of the trial court’s order dismissing count IV with prejudice, and we remand the cause to the trial‘court to allow the Jarvises to replead count IV See Jackson v. Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Center, 294 Ill. App. 3d 1, 18 (1997).

Section 2-615 permits dismissal when the complaint lacks facts needed to support a claim, but a curable pleading defect warrants dismissal without prejudice.

Romanek v. Connelly · filed 2001-06-29(a)

Nonetheless, dismissal is warranted under section 2 — 615 of the Act because plaintiffs factual allegations do not adequately support her cause of action. ... While proper on this basis, dismissal is without prejudice since the complaint’s infirmity can be corrected by amendment.

Section 2 — 615 permits dismissal with prejudice only when it is clearly apparent that no provable facts would entitle the plaintiff to recover.

McLean v. Rockford Country Club · filed 2004-09-23

A complaint should be dismissed with prejudice under section 2 — 615 only if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal without leave to amend when no set of provable facts would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.

Sims-Hearn v. Office of the Medical Examiner · filed 2005-08-15(a)

A trial court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action with no opportunity to replead if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven which will entitle plaintiff to recovery.

A section 2-615 dismissal should be without prejudice when the pleading defects can be cured by amendment.

Hartshorn v. State Farm Insurance · filed 2005-10-31

We hold that the court properly dismissed the complaint as it relates to Safeguard, but that the dismissal should have been without prejudice.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice when a complaint is legally insufficient and the plaintiff offers no amendment that would cure its defects.

Bellik v. Bank of America · filed 2007-06-08

In light of our determination that Bellik’s third-party complaint was properly dismissed by the circuit court pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code, and Bellik offered no potential amendments to his original complaint to cure its defects, we find that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed his complaint with prejudice.

A complaint may be dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 only when it is clearly apparent that no provable facts would entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Tucker v. Soy Capital Bank & Trust Co. · filed 2012-06-28

A complaint should be dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 only if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Section 2-615 allows dismissal with prejudice only when it is clearly apparent that no provable facts would entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Cowper v. Nyberg · filed 2015-03-19

A complaint should be dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 only if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven that will entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice only when no provable set of facts would entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Cowper v. Nyberg · filed 2015-04-23

A complaint should be dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 only if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven that will entitle the plaintiff to recover.

A successful section 2-615 motion generally does not finally dispose of a case; dismissal with prejudice requires a showing that no facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. · filed 2015-06-04

Generally, a section 2-615 motion, if successful, will not result in a final disposition of the case because "a cause of action should not be dismissed with prejudice unless it is clear that no set of facts can be proved under the pleading which would entitle the plaintiff to relief."

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice only when it is clearly apparent that no set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Curielli v. Quinn · filed 2015-08-04

"A complaint should be dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 only if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recover." Tucker v. Soy Capital Bank & Trust Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 103303, ¶ 17. Here, as discussed above, there is no set of facts under which section 20-20(a)(34) will be deemed facially unconstitutional under the special legislation, equal protection, or separation of powers clauses of the Illinois Constitution.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal of a complaint with prejudice only when it is clearly apparent that no set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Curielli v. Quinn · filed 2015-09-24

“A complaint should be dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 only if it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recover.” Tucker v. Soy Capital Bank & Trust Co., 2012 IL App (1st) 103303, ¶ 17. Here, as discussed above, there is no set of facts under which section 20-20(a)(34) will be deemed facially unconstitutional under the special legislation, equal protection, or separation of powers clauses of the Illinois Constitution.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal for defects apparent on the face of a complaint, but a plaintiff should generally have an opportunity to cure pleading defects by amendment.

Salvi v. Village of Lake Zurich · filed 2017-01-18

A motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face. ... The decision to deny leave to amend is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and generally the trial court should give a plaintiff at least some opportunity to cure the defects in his or her complaint. ... Thus, we affirm the dismissal of count VI, but we vacate the court’s determination that the dismissal is with prejudice.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice only when the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle it to relief.

Lake Point Tower Condominium Assocation v. Waller · filed 2017-09-28

A complaint should be dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 or section 2-619 only where it is clear that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle it to relief.

Section 2-615 allows dismissal with prejudice only when it is clearly apparent that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling recovery.

Norabuena v. Medtronic, Inc. · filed 2017-12-18

A dismissal under section 2-615 of the Code should be made with prejudice only where it is clearly apparent that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts entitling recovery.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice only when it is clear that no provable facts would allow the plaintiff to recover.

Snodgrass v. Raoul · filed 2020-02-03

Additionally, the court may not dismiss with prejudice a cause of action under section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent no set of facts can be proved allowing the plaintiff to recover.

Section 2-615(a) permits dismissal with prejudice when no set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to recover.

Libby v. Thompson · filed 2020-03-20(a)

A court must dismiss a complaint with prejudice when it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recover. ... He therefore cannot state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and dismissal with prejudice was appropriate under section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2018)).

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice only when it is clear that the plaintiff cannot plead facts entitling them to relief; otherwise, the plaintiff should have an opportunity to amend.

Uskup v. Johnson · filed 2020-12-31

A dismissal under section 2-615 of the Code should be made with prejudice “only where it is clearly apparent that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts entitling recovery.” Norabuena v. Medtronic, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 162928, ¶ 39. ... Accordingly, while we affirm the trial court’s dismissal, we reverse the designation of that dismissal as “with prejudice.”

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice when a claimant cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle it to relief.

RTC Industries, Inc. v. Makray Manufacturing Co. · filed 2021-03-25

Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed with prejudice Makray’s breach of contract counterclaim under section 2-615 of the Code because Makray cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle it to relief.

A successful section 2-615 motion generally does not end the case; dismissing with prejudice may be an abuse of discretion when the plaintiff has not had a fair opportunity to amend.

Jablow v. Marsh · filed 2022-02-03

Generally, a successful section 2-615 motion to dismiss “will not result in a final disposition of the case.” Smith v. Central Illinois Regional Airport, 207 Ill. 2d 578, 584, 802 N.E.2d 250, 254 (2003). ... Here, we find the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice. ... Under the circumstances, we cannot say plaintiff was given a fair opportunity to address the pleading deficiencies noted by the court.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice only when no set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief, even if the plaintiff did not request leave to amend.

Brewer v. Allstate Life Insurance, Co. · filed 2022-03-22

Our supreme court has held that a trial court should dismiss a complaint with prejudice under section 2-615 only if it is clearly apparent that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle her to recover. The court has held this rule applies whether or not the plaintiff has requested leave to amend.

Section 2-615 allows leave to amend after dismissal without prejudice when pleading defects can be corrected and a claim may still be stated.

Smith v. King · filed 2023-01-13

Here, respondent moved to dismiss under section 2-615 on the basis that petitioner failed to file an “amended” petition and name respondent as a party. Respondent’s challenges to the sufficiency of the petition rested on petitioner’s misspelling of the word “amended” as “ammend” and respondent’s first name “Brandon” as “Bradon.” We find the two spelling defects in the petition amount to easily remedied scrivener’s errors with no bearing on whether petitioner could ... ultimately state a claim for relief.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice for failure to plead an element only when it is apparent that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling her to recover.

In re Marriage of Landgren · filed 2023-05-24

However, a motion to dismiss based on the failure to plead an element of a cause of action falls under section 2-615 of the Civil Practice Law (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2020)). Pursuant to that section, a motion to dismiss should be granted “with prejudice only if it is apparent that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that will entitled him or her to recover.” Bruss v. Przybylo, 385 Ill. App. 3d 399, 405 (2008). Under the present circumstances, we cannot say this is the case, as the accounting may lead petitioner to other facts that would allow her to prevail here.

Section 2-615 does not give plaintiffs unlimited opportunities to amend a deficient complaint.

Bakhtiari v. Savenok · filed 2023-10-11

Section 2-615 does not grant plaintiffs the right to unlimited amendments.

A complaint dismissed under section 2-615 may be dismissed with prejudice when the plaintiff did not request leave to amend or explain how amendment would cure the pleading defects.

Cagwin v. Flynn · filed 2023-10-24

In other words, she offers no argument that her claims were sufficiently pled or should have survived defendants’ section 2-615 motion to dismiss. Rather, plaintiff argues that dismissal of the complaint should not have been with prejudice and that she should have been given leave to amend the complaint. We disagree. ... Here, however, plaintiff never requested leave to amend. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion where no exercise of that discretion was requested. See id. ... Accordingly, there is no basis upon which to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice when the complaint is insufficient and the plaintiff does not seek leave to amend.

Payne v. PNC Bank National Association · filed 2024-07-19

But, in their briefing, plaintiffs have not argued that the circuit court’s dismissal being made with prejudice was in error, and there is no evidence in the ... record that they ever sought the ability to file a second amended complaint. ... Consequently, the court’s dismissal with prejudice of all four counts of plaintiffs’ amended complaint under section 2-615 was proper.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal when a complaint lacks specific facts supporting a claim, but dismissal should be without prejudice when the plaintiff may be able to cure that defect.

Bowne v. Donnelly · filed 2025-08-11

His failure to do so warranted dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim. However, we find that dismissal with prejudice under the circumstances was premature given that Towne stated he was able to remedy the lack of specificity in his complaint using grand jury transcripts he had requested.

A circuit court has discretion to dismiss a complaint with prejudice under section 2-615 without granting leave to amend.

Cole v. Yang · filed 2025-08-15

Whether a complaint may be dismissed with prejudice, that is, without granting leave to amend, is a decision within the circuit court’s discretion.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice when a complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim and no provable facts would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.

Bushong v. Homer Glen Area Chamber of Commerce · filed 2026-02-19

Because the complaint failed to allege a legally sufficient claim for breach of fiduciary duty, it was properly dismissed. It is clearly apparent that there are no set of facts that could be proven that would entitle Bushong to recovery, so the dismissal was properly entered with prejudice.

A section 2-615 dismissal may remain with prejudice when amendment cannot cure the complaint’s defect.

United Equitable Insurance Company v. Steward · filed 2026-03-31

We observe that courts have reversed section 2-615 dismissals “with prejudice” in order to remove the “with prejudice” designation where it was possible that amendment could cure the defects of the complaint. See, e.g., Uskup v. Johnson, 2020 IL App (1st) 200330, ¶ 36; Norabuena v. Medtronic, Inc., 2017 IL App (1st) 162928, ¶ 39. Here, however, the circuit court’s dismissal was based on its determination that the complaint presented no actual controversy where the claims alleged were not appropriate for declaratory judgment proceedings. This is not a defect which can be cured by amendment, and we accordingly decline UEIC’s request to remove the “with prejudice” designation.