735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/2-615

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

United Equitable Insurance Co. v. Steward · filed 2026-04-22

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.

Section 2-615 does not give a litigant an absolute right to amend, and dismissal with prejudice is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Ervin v. Advocate South Suburban Hospital · filed 2026-06-25

A litigant does not have an absolute right to amend under section 2-615 of the Code and we will not disturb a trial court’s decision dismissing a complaint with prejudice absent an abuse of discretion.

Section 2-615(a) allows a party to seek leave to amend a pleading before final judgment.

Ropiy v. Hernandez · filed 2006-02-07(a)

While Ropiy contends he did not raise the due process issue because he was unaware of the amendment when he filed the complaint, he could have sought leave of court to amend his pleadings at any time prior to final judgment. See 735 ILCS 5/2 — 615(a) (West 2004).

A section 2-615 motion may be used to test the constitutionality of a statute.

Village of Schaumburg v. Doyle · filed 1996-02-05

A section 2-615 motion is a proper way to test the constitutionality of a statute.

Section 2-615 pleading requirements do not apply to petitions filed by insanity acquittees for discharge or conditional release under section 5 — 2—4(e).

People v. Shelton · filed 1996-06-12

After defendant filed his section 5 — 2—4(e) petition, the State’s Attorney’s office filed a motion to strike the petition for being insufficient under section 2 — 615 of the Civil Practice Law (735 ILCS 5/2— 615 (West 1992)). ... We hold that the pleading requirements of the Civil Practice Law and 5 — 2—4(d) of the Unified Code of Corrections (730 ILCS 5/5 — 2— 4(d) (West 1992)) are not applicable to petitions filed by insanity acquittees under section 5 — 2—4(e).

Section 2-615 motions test whether a complaint states a claim for relief; they do not properly raise lack of standing.

People Ex Rel. Vuagniaux v. City of Edwardsville · filed 1996-10-16

The issue is not properly presented in a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss because this motion tests whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim for which relief might be granted.

A section 2-615 motion cannot be used to raise lack of standing, which is an affirmative defense properly raised under section 2-619.

Kaden v. Pucinski · filed 1997-03-31

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 defendants here have 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. Thus, we cannot now consider this issue.

Section 2-615 permits a motion to dismiss for lack of standing when the defect appears on the face of the pleading.

In re Visitation of J.T.H. · filed 2015-09-28

Second, even if not forfeited, we find Jenny's argument to be without merit, where our supreme court has rejected this same argument by finding that the issue of lack of standing may be properly brought under a section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

A lack of standing is an affirmative defense that must be raised under section 2-619(a)(9), not in a section 2-615 motion.

Trzop v. Hudson · filed 2015-09-30

"Because lack of standing is an affirmative defense, it must be raised in a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code, and not in a section 2-615 motion."

Section 2-615 permits a motion to dismiss a contract claim when whether the complaint states a cause of action turns on a legal question of contract interpretation.

Foxfield Realty, Inc. v. Kubala · filed 1997-04-09

Whether a complaint states a cause of action based on the interpretation of a contract may be the subject of a motion to dismiss where the question presented is a matter of law.

On a section 2-615 motion, affidavits that merely contradict facts alleged in the complaint have no bearing on dismissal.

Doe v. Northwestern University · filed 1997-06-17(b)

While the evidence might have some relevance to a motion for summary judgment, it has no bearing on the motions to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 or 2-619.

Section 2-615 limits the materials a court may consider on a motion to dismiss; materials outside those limits may be struck.

Kirchner v. Greene · filed 1998-02-06

Accordingly, the trial court properly granted defendants’ motion to strike the materials and arguments in plaintiffs’ reply to defendants’ section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss because they clearly exceeded the material that can be considered in such a motion.

On a section 2-615 motion, a court may resolve inconsistent allegations against the pleader and treat signatures as forged when the complaint depends on forgery.

Shelter Management XIX v. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg & Ament P. C. · filed 1998-12-31

Third-party plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly made a finding of fact on a section 2—615 motion to dismiss. 735 ILCS 5/2—615 (West 1996). ... Likewise in the case at bar, not only did third-party plaintiffs make inconsistent pleadings regarding the authenticity of the signatures on the guaranties, but the basis of the entire case rests on the premise that the signatures are forged; if the guaranties were genuine, then Shelter would have no case against third-party plaintiffs and third-party plaintiffs would have no derivative case against third-party defendants. ... According to the ruling in Pioneer Bank, the trial court properly made the finding that the signatures on the guaranties were forged.

Section 2-615 does not permit dismissal based on the meaning of an ambiguous agreement when evidence of the parties’ intent is needed.

In Re Marriage of Findlay · filed 1998-05-27(a)

However, whether the agreement here did so is a factual issue that cannot be resolved without evidence of the parties’ intent. Therefore, we hold that (1) the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that it lacked the authority to decide the dispute over petitioner’s relocation; (2) whether the agreement authorizes the court to act here depends on the meaning of the settlement agreement, an issue that must be decided on the available evidence of the parties’ intent rather than by a motion to dismiss.

A section 2-615 motion addresses defects apparent on the face of the complaint, and exhibits incorporated into the complaint must be considered when assessing whether it states a claim.

Dubinsky v. United Airlines Master Executive Council · filed 1999-03-01

A section 2—615 motion attacks only defects apparent on the face of the complaint and is based on the pleadings rather than the underlying facts. Urbaitis v. Commonwealth Edison, 143 Ill. 2d 458, 475, 575 N.E.2d 548 (1991). In the present case, plaintiffs have incorporated several exhibits into their complaint, including the letters and articles at issue here, which must be considered when analyzing the sufficiency of the pleading.

Section 2-615 requires courts to read well-pled allegations and supporting documents in the nonmoving party’s favor and permits dismissal only when the plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting a cause of action.

Commercial Union v. City of Chicago · filed 1999-09-30

When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 1998)) or a denial of a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, the court must interpret all well-pled allegations and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. In re Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill. 2d 179, 189 (1997). Only where the plaintiffs fail to allege facts supporting a cause of action should the court grant the motion to dismiss.

On a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true when deciding whether the complaint is sufficient.

Ganci v. Washington · filed 2001-01-17

In ruling on a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true the complaint’s well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. ... We conclude that the allegations of count I are sufficient to withstand a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss at this stage of the proceedings.

Section 2-615 motions test the sufficiency of the pleadings, so courts may not consider depositions, affidavits, or other supporting materials when ruling on them.

Provenzale v. Forister · filed 2001-01-23

Accordingly, depositions (Becker v. Zellner, 292 Ill. App. 3d 116, 124 (1997)), affidavits, and other supporting materials (Premier Electrical Construction Co. v. La Salle National Bank, 115 Ill. App. 3d 638, 643 (1983)) may not be considered by the court in ruling on a section 2 — 615 motion.

Section 2-615 limits review of a motion to dismiss to the facts alleged in the complaint.

Mars, Inc. v. Heritage Builders of Effingham, Inc. · filed 2002-01-29

Since the motion to dismiss that forms the basis of the instant appeal was filed pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we are constrained to consider only those facts alleged in the complaint (see Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill.2d at 189, 223 Ill.Dec. 532, 680 N.E.2d at 270); and here the facts relating to Kal Kan's ownership of the frame are contradictory.

A section 2-615 motion admits all well-pled facts in the complaint and the reasonable inferences from those facts.

Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias · filed 2011-01-27

A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to either section 2 — 615 or section 2 — 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure admits all well-pled facts in the complaint and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts.

Under section 2—615, a defendant’s affidavit cannot negate well-pleaded facts in the complaint.

Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP · filed 2011-03-16

Plaintiffs are correct that under section 2—615, Wanser’s affidavit cannot negate the well-pleaded facts of the complaint.

Section 2-615 permits a court to consider documents and exhibits incorporated into the pleadings when ruling on a motion to dismiss.

Wells v. Endicott · filed 2013-05-31

Documents and exhibits that have been incorporated into the pleadings may be considered by the court when ruling on a section 2-615 motion.

On a section 2-615 motion, the court does not resolve factual questions about the defendant’s justification for its conduct using new materials presented on appeal.

Central Austin Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Chicago · filed 2014-01-21

In effect, by presenting these documents in support of a section 2-615 dismissal of the complaint, the City seeks to justify its procedures, without allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct discovery that could show the full scope of the disparate impact and counter the City’s evidence of justification. We will not take judicial notice of the materials the City cites, and we will confine our review to the issue of whether the complaint states a political question of the kind that leaves the City’s actions exempt from court review.

Section 2-615 limits review of a complaint’s sufficiency to the pleadings and incorporated exhibits; the court may not consider affidavits or other outside evidence.

Saletech, LLC v. East Balt, Inc. · filed 2014-10-29

In its brief, Saletech refers to an affidavit from Simon Gordon but, as previously discussed, in deciding a section 2-615 motion, the trial court may not consider affidavits, products of discovery, documentary evidence not incorporated into the pleadings as exhibits, or other evidentiary materials.

On a section 2-615 motion, the court considers well-pleaded allegations and excludes the unpleaded contents of documents that were not attached to the complaint.

Phillips v. DePaul University · filed 2014-11-26

Accordingly, in our analysis of the section 2-615 dismissal order, we consider only plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations regarding the contents of the employment information for the 2005, 2007, and 2009 classes; we do not consider any contents that were not pleaded or attached to the first-amended class action complaint.

Section 2-615 limits a court to the pleadings when deciding a motion to dismiss; it may not consider affidavits or other evidence outside them.

Saletech, LLC v. East Balt, Inc. · filed 2014-12-12

In its brief, Saletech refers to an affidavit from Simon Gordon but, as previously discussed, in deciding a section 2-615 motion, the trial court may not consider affidavits, products of discovery, documentary evidence not incorporated into the pleadings as exhibits, or other evidentiary materials.

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

In re Marriage of Little · filed 2014-12-22

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 court ruling on a section 2-615 motion considers the complaint’s allegations, not affidavits or other supporting material.

In re Estate of York · filed 2015-04-16

The ruling on the motion to strike Mulryan's affidavit could not have been a step in the procedural progression leading to the section 2-615 dismissal of count II, as consideration of affidavits is not allowed in ruling on section 2-615 dismissals.

A court ruling on a section 2-615 motion considers the complaint’s allegations, not affidavits.

In re Estate of York · filed 2015-05-22

The ruling on the motion to strike Mulryan’s affidavit could not have been a step in the procedural progression leading to the section 2-615 dismissal of count II, as consideration of affidavits is not allowed in ruling on section 2-615 dismissals.

On review of a section 2-615 dismissal, a court may consider facts on the face of the pleadings, matters subject to judicial notice, and judicial admissions in the record.

Phusion Projects, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Compary of South Carolina · filed 2015-12-18(b)

Because this matter is on review of a section 2-615 motion, we may consider the facts apparent from the face of the pleadings, matters of which the court can take judicial notice, and judicial admissions in the record.

On review of a section 2-615 motion, a court may take judicial notice of underlying complaints that are public records even if they were not attached to the operative pleading.

Phusion Projects, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Compary of South Carolina · filed 2016-02-23

Because this matter is on review of a section 2-615 motion, we may consider the facts apparent from the face of the pleadings, matters of which the court can take judicial notice, and judicial admissions in the record. ... Although the underlying complaints were not attached as exhibits to the operative pleading, we will take judicial notice of them as matters of public record.

On a section 2-615 motion, the court accepts all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true.

Dobias v. Oak Park · filed 2016-06-24

As the complaint was dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2012)), we must accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true.

Section 2-615 limits a court deciding a motion to dismiss to the allegations in the pleadings.

Lavite v. Dunstan · filed 2016-08-05

The trial court obviously considered facts outside of the plaintiff's pleading, which was improper under a section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

A section 2-615 motion is decided on the pleadings; a court may not dismiss a claim based on facts outside them.

Lavite v. Dunstan · filed 2016-09-26

The trial court obviously considered facts outside of the plaintiff’s pleading, which was improper under a section 2-615 motion to dismiss. Therefore, having reviewed the allegations of Lavite’s complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, we believe the court erred in dismissing count I under section 2-615, where it considered factual matters outside of the pleadings.

Section 2-615 requires a court ruling on a motion to dismiss to accept well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true.

Blumenthal v. Brewer · filed 2016-10-20

In ruling on a section 2-615 motion, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts.

On a section 2-615 motion, a court accepts well-pled facts as true but does not accept unsupported conclusions of fact or law.

Doe v. Doe · filed 2016-11-10

Although in ruling on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss the court must accept as true all well-pled facts contained in the complaint under attack, the court does not accept as true conclusions of fact or law that are not supported by allegations of fact upon which the conclusions rest.

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

Watts v. ADDO Management, L.L.C. · filed 2018-01-24

In ruling on a section 2-615 motion, the court may only consider (1) those facts apparent from the face of the pleadings, (2) matters subject to judicial notice, and (3) judicial admissions in the record.

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

Crampton v. Crampton · filed 2018-03-02

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

Section 2-615 limits a motion to dismiss to matters in the pleadings; factual choice-of-law issues are properly addressed under section 2-619.

Perkinson v. Courson · filed 2018-03-12

Such factual issues are properly considered and addressed in the context of a section 2-619 motion to dismiss, where a trial court may consider pleadings, depositions, and affidavits when making its ruling (Zedella v. Gibson, 165 Ill. 2d 181, 185, 650 N.E.2d 1000, 1002 (1995)), rather than in the context of section 2-615 motion, where only the pleadings may be considered (Illinois Graphics, 159 Ill. 2d at 485).

A section 2-615 motion is limited to the pleadings; factual issues about which state's law applies may be considered under section 2-619.

Perkinson v. Courson · filed 2018-04-20

Such factual issues are properly considered and addressed in the context of a section 2-619 motion to dismiss, where a trial court may consider pleadings, depositions, and affidavits when making its ruling (Zedella v. Gibson, 165 Ill. 2d 181, 185, 650 N.E.2d 1000, 1002 (1995)), rather than in the context of section 2-615 motion, where only the pleadings may be considered (Illinois Graphics, 159 Ill. 2d at 485).

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

Bocock v. Will County Sheriff · filed 2018-07-09

“[A] cause of action should not be dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.” Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422, 429 (2006). ... In summary, neither section 2-615 nor section 2-619 of the Code supports dismissal of the third complaint (case No. 16-MR-2527).

On a section 2-615 motion, a court may consider facts in the pleadings, matters subject to judicial notice, and judicial admissions.

O'Keefe v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. · filed 2020-05-04

In ruling on a section 2-615 motion, the court only considers (1) those facts apparent from the face of the pleadings, (2) matters subject to judicial notice, and (3) judicial admissions on record. ... The circuit court properly took judicial notice of information published in the Federal Register.

On a section 2-615 motion, a court may consider matters subject to judicial notice, including information published in the Federal Register.

O'Keefe v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. · filed 2020-08-31

In ruling on a section 2-615 motion, the court only considers (1) those facts apparent from the face of the pleadings, (2) matters subject to judicial notice, and (3) judicial admissions on record. ... The circuit court properly took judicial notice of information published in the Federal Register.

Section 2-615 tests whether the complaint’s allegations, construed in the plaintiff’s favor, state a claim; the court does not consider matters outside the pleading.

People v. Hoffman · filed 2020-10-28

Thus, contrary to defendant’s assertion, we need not look to the matters outside of the pleading.

Section 2-615 does not permit a court to consider exhibits attached only to a response when evaluating a motion to dismiss.

Mullins v. Evans · filed 2021-03-31

However, as these exhibits are not attached to plaintiffs’ complaints, they are not properly considered in evaluating a motion to dismiss under section 2-615.

On a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the court takes well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true and construes them in favor of the nonmoving party.

Booker v. The Office of Madison County State's Attorney · filed 2022-08-23

When ruling upon either a section 2-615 or section 2-619 motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded facts, and reasonable inferences therefrom, are taken as true and construed in favor of the nonmoving party.

On a section 2-615 motion, the court considers only the complaint’s allegations and disregards supporting material submitted outside the complaint.

Cretella v. Azcon, Inc. · filed 2022-09-22

We also will rely only on the allegations of the complaint and thus grant defendant’s request to disregard the insurance form and e-mail.

Section 2-615 requires the court to construe the complaint in the plaintiff’s favor and accept well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true.

Ash v. PSP Distribution, LLC · filed 2023-06-12

When ruling on a motion under section 2-615, the court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true.

A section 2-615 motion cannot resolve a factual dispute over whether a plaintiff was terminated for cause.

Owens v. APFS, LLC · filed 2025-08-21

Whether Owens was fired for cause or without cause is a question of fact which cannot be decided by the circuit court pursuant to a section 2-615 dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal of Owens’s claims for breach of contract were in error.

Section 2-615 does not permit a court to resolve factual issues when deciding whether a complaint states a claim.

Capitol Cement Company, Inc. v. City of Harvey · filed 2026-03-31

Given the clear black-letter law that such factual determinations are inappropriate for a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the circuit court erred in dismissing the claim on that basis.

A section 2-615 motion admits well-pleaded facts as true, and an unverified police report attached to a withdrawn complaint cannot defeat allegations that otherwise state a claim.

Vincent v. Williams · filed 1996-03-29

A section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss admits all wellpled facts as true, but does not admit conclusions of law or factual conclusions which are unsupported by allegations of specific facts. ... The police report should not have been judicially noticed in this case. ... For this reason, the plaintiff’s factual allegations that defendants, in conspiracy with one another, falsely and maliciously caused or procured his arrest are sufficient to withstand the section 2 — 615 motion.

Section 2—615 limits review to the complaint and its attached exhibits; deposition materials cannot supply missing allegations.

McMahon v. City of Chicago · filed 2003-04-22

However, the Quinones deposition cannot be used by plaintiff to state this claim. The city correctly points out that plaintiff improperly attached selected pages from the deposition to his reply brief. The trial court disregarded the attachments under Kirchner v. Greene, 294 Ill. App. 3d 672, 676-77, 691 N.E.2d 107 (1998) (for the purposes of a section 2—615 motion, a court cannot consider supporting materials, except exhibits attached to and part of the complaint, because the motion alleges only defects on the face of the complaint).

Section 2-615 permits dismissal with prejudice of a complaint seeking to enforce a contract provision that lacks a definite price term or a practicable, objective method for determining it.

Grund and Leavitt, P.C. v. Stephenson · filed 2022-05-19

We conclude that Grund’s breach of contract complaint was properly dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 of the Code because Grund’s fee enhancement provision lacked a sufficiently definite price term or a practicable and objective method for the court to determine that term consistent with the parties’ meeting of the minds.

A denied section 2-615 motion is foreclosed from review after verdict when the complaint states or implies every element of a recognized cause of action.

Labate v. Data Forms, Inc. · filed 1997-05-22

It seems to us where the complaint, whether based on statute or common law, sets out or implies the elements of the action, it is immune from post-verdict attack. The defendant, after losing at trial, should not be able to revisit a near miss in the pleading. ... Since plaintiffs complaint set forth facts that would establish every element of a tortious interference cause of action, we decline to review the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the complaint or grant summary judgment.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal when the complaint fails to plead facts that could entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Guardino v. Chrysler Corp. · filed 1998-02-13

A section 2 — 615 motion for dismissal should not be granted unless it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proved that would entitle plaintiff's to recovery. ... Because the complaint fails to plead facts regarding violative action by Chrysler Credit, we affirm the dismissal.

Section 2-615(a) tests whether a pleading is legally sufficient; courts accept well-pleaded facts as true and review dismissals de novo.

Owen Wagener & Co. v. U.S. Bank · filed 1998-06-30(a)

A motion to dismiss under section 2 — 615(a) of the Civil Practice Law “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).

On a section 2-615 motion, courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true but do not accept legal conclusions as true.

Fisher v. Lexington Health Care, Inc. · filed 1998-12-09

Although defendants dispute the facts alleged in plaintiffs' complaint, because this case comes before us after a motion to dismiss was granted, we must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations but not the legal conclusions contained in plaintiffs' complaint.

On a section 2-615 motion, courts take well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.

Velez v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc. · filed 1999-11-12

When determining the legal sufficiency of a complaint under section 2 — 615, all well-pleaded facts are taken as true, and all reasonable inferences from those facts are drawn in favor of the plaintiff.

On a section 2-615 motion, courts accept well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor.

Pawlikowski v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp. · filed 1999-12-23

In reviewing a dismissal under section 2 — 615 of the Code, we must take all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those facts that are favorable to the pleader.

On a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the court takes all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true.

Davis v. Brown · filed 2005-04-13

In reviewing the propriety of the trial court’s decision on a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code, we take as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint.

Section 2-615 requires a court reviewing dismissal of a complaint to accept well-pled facts and reasonable inferences as true, but not unsupported conclusions.

Reuter v. MasterCard International, Inc. · filed 2010-01-05

This case comes to us after a dismissal pursuant to section 2—615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On appeal, we must take all well-pled facts in the plaintiffs complaint as true and draw reasonable inferences from the facts pled in favor of the plaintiff. We need not, however, accept as true any conclusions that are asserted unless they are supported by sufficient specific factual allegations.

A section 2-615 motion accepts well-pleaded facts as true but disregards unsupported legal and factual conclusions when testing whether a complaint states a claim.

CNA International, Inc. v. Baer · filed 2012-11-21(a)

A section 2-615 motion admits all well-pleaded facts as true, but not conclusions of law or factual conclusions which are unsupported by allegations of specific facts.

Section 2-615 tests whether a complaint’s allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, state a cause of action.

Suchy v. The City of Geneva · filed 2014-05-20

The test is whether the allegations in the complaint, when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

On a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must plead sufficient facts but need not present evidence.

Tyrka v. Glenview Ridge Condominium Ass'n · filed 2014-08-11

Since the case at bar involved a section 2-615 motion to dismiss rather than a summary judgment motion as in both Goennenwein and Severson, plaintiffs here do not have to come forward with evidence but only with factual allegations.

Section 2-615 requires specific factual allegations; conclusory allegations are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Dennis v. Pace Suburban Bus Service · filed 2014-09-12

These types of allegations are entirely conclusory and, as such, they are insufficient to survive a 2-615 motion to dismiss.

Section 2-615 tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency on its face; courts accept well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences but disregard unsupported conclusions.

Allied Health Group, Ltd. v. Nakhshin · filed 2019-12-06

A section 2-615 motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint based on defects apparent on the face of the pleading. Ledeaux v. Motorola, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 161345, ¶ 14. The court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts, as well as any reasonable inferences flowing from those facts. Id. Conclusions of law and conclusory factual allegations unsupported by specific facts are not deemed admitted.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal only when it is clear that no facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Dave v. Schmitz · filed 2019-12-12

“A cause of action should not be dismissed under section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.”

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

Feis Equities, LLC v. Sompo International Holdings, Ltd. · filed 2020-08-14

In reviewing a dismissal under section 2-615, this court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences from those facts, construing allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

On a section 2-615 motion, courts do not accept bare legal conclusions or unsupported factual allegations as true.

Selby v. O'Dea · filed 2020-11-18

Bare conclusions of law, or conclusory factual allegations that parrot the elements of a cause of action without underlying factual support, are not taken as true in considering a section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal when a complaint fails to properly plead a claim.

Reynolds v. Village of Creve Coeur · filed 2022-10-26

A review of the content of count II leads to our conclusion that plaintiff failed to properly plead a claim for unconstitutionality due to vagueness or federal preemption and the trial court properly dismissed count II pursuant to section 2-615.

Section 2-615 allows dismissal when defects apparent on the face of a pleading show that its allegations cannot state a claim for relief.

Cullum v. Adkins · filed 2023-04-26

“A section 2-615 motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face.”

Section 2-615 permits dismissal for pleading defects when no set of facts could entitle the claimant to relief.

Village of Calumet Park v. Double D Vision Development · filed 2024-08-30

As stated, a section 2-615 motion attacks defects in the pleading. 735 ILCS 5/2-615. Further, “[a] cause of action should not be dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.”

Section 2 — 615 permits a court to apply the innocent construction rule when deciding a motion to dismiss.

Becker v. Zellner · filed 1997-09-16

Therefore, we hold that trial courts may properly apply the innocent construction rule when ruling on both section 2 — 615 and section 2 — 619 motions to dismiss.

A dismissal under Section 2-615 is involuntary and operates as an adjudication on the merits under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273.

Slavov v. Marriott International, Inc. · filed 1998-01-06

Marriott moved- to dismiss Slavov’s state complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS § 5/2-615. A grant of dismissal under this statutory provision constitutes an “involuntary dismissal.”

Section 2-615 tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency; denial of a motion under the section does not prevent later evaluation of the claim at summary judgment or trial.

Dunlap v. Alcuin Montessori School · filed 1998-07-21

A motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 1994)) attacks the legal sufficiency of a complaint, and does not raise affirmative factual defenses. ... The dismissal of the motion to dismiss did not preclude any evaluation of whether the letter was defamatory at the summary judgment or directed verdict stage.

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss may be decided before discovery.

Storm & Associates 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.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal of an insufficient pleading with leave to amend, so the dismissal is not final until the suit is dismissed.

Smith v. Central Illinois Regional Airport · filed 2003-11-20

In the present case, it is true that defendants challenged the sufficiency of count III by way of a section 2 — 615 motion on December 29, 2000, and that the circuit court heard the motion prior to plaintiffs filing of his motion to voluntarily dismiss. The court had, in fact, ruled in defendants’ favor by dismissing count III. Contrary to defendants’ claims, however, that ruling did not have the effect of a final disposition of the case because the court made the dismissal without prejudice and gave plaintiff 60 days in which to file an amendment.

A section 2-615 motion tests the sufficiency of a pleading, but whether an order labeled as granting it is final depends on what the court actually decided.

Illinois Bone & Joint Institute v. Kime · filed 2009-12-18

By definition, however, all § 2-615 motions attack the sufficiency of the plaintiff's allegations (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2004)), thus, the motion itself is not the proper focus of inquiry. ... For these reasons, we find that the § 2-615 dismissal order entered on November 29, 2005, was an interlocutory order entered after the case had been DWP'd on November 9, 2005, and that the DWP remained interlocutory on June 9, 2008, when the court vacated both dismissal orders and reinstated IBJI's cause of action.

A section 2-615 motion tests whether the pleaded facts state a cause of action, and a dismissal with leave to replead generally does not finally dispose of the case.

Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. · filed 2015-07-14

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." Smith, 207 Ill. 2d at 584-85, 802 N.E.2d at 254.

Reversing a section 2-615 dismissal reinstates the complaint for further proceedings; it does not decide the merits.

Nyhammer v. Basta · filed 2022-11-28

It is noteworthy that the appellate court reversed the circuit court’s order that granted the Department’s motion to dismiss. The effect of that reversal would be to reinstate the complaint in the circuit court, which had not been determined on the merits.

A defendant generally waives objections to defects in a complaint raised under section 2-615 by answering after the motion is denied.

Diaz v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · filed 2002-10-03

In this motion, the bank relied on section 2 — 615 of the Civil Practice Law. 735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 2000). The bank subsequently answered the complaint. When a trial court denies a motion to dismiss a complaint and a defendant files an answer, the defendant generally waives any objection to defects in the complaint. People v. $1,124,905 U.S. Currency & One 1988 Chevrolet Astro Van, 177 Ill. 2d 314, 333 (1997). Thus, by answering plaintiffs’ complaint, the bank waived any objections regarding the sufficiency of the complaint, and we will not consider this issue.

A party waives a section 2-615 objection to pleading defects by filing an answer after the motion is denied and allowing the case to proceed to an evidentiary hearing.

In Re Marriage of Johnson · filed 2003-05-19

Sheila has waived the issue. After the trial court denied Sheila’s motion to dismiss Gordon’s petition, she filed an answer and the matter proceeded to an evidentiary hearing. “Generally, where a trial court denies a defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint, and that defendant elects to file an answer to the complaint, the defendant waives any defect in the pleading.”

A defendant may challenge pleading defects in an amended complaint under section 2-615 even after answering the superseded original complaint.

Süd Family Ltd. Partnership v. Otto Baum Co. · filed 2024-03-12

Under these circumstances, defendants cannot be said to have waived defects in Süd’s amended complaint by filing an answer to its prior original complaint.

A defendant who answers a complaint without withdrawing the answer waives a section 2-615 challenge to missing essential factual allegations.

EJ Construction 1 Corp. v. Pellegrino · filed 2024-10-21(a)

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s dismissal and hold that defendant’s unwithdrawn answer precludes his section 2-615 argument.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal of class action allegations only when the complaint leaves no possibility of maintaining a class action.

Weiss v. Waterhouse Securities, Inc. · filed 2002-11-26(a)

If there is no possibility that a claim can be maintained as a class action, then dismissal of the class action allegations is proper pursuant to section 2 — 615. On the other hand, if there is any possibility that a class action can be maintained for some members of a class, dismissal under section 2 — 615 is not warranted.

Section 2-615(a) permits dismissal of class action allegations that are legally insufficient, but requires only allegations broad enough to show the possible existence of a class action claim.

Weiss v. Waterhouse Securities, Inc. · filed 2004-01-23(a)

The appropriate way to determine whether to strike insufficient class action allegations is by a motion to dismiss under section 2 — 615(a). The former motion is typically brought by a putative class action plaintiff, who asks the court, based on evidentiary materials adduced through discovery, to find that the case can proceed as a class action. The latter motion is typically brought by a defendant, who asks the court, based on the face of the complaint, to dismiss the plaintiffs class action allegations as legally insufficient. The showing that Weiss must make in seeking class certification is correspondingly higher than the showing he must make to withstand a motion to strike class allegations. Unlike the class action prerequisites at certification, here they are not a matter of proof, but a matter of pleading.

Section 2–615 addresses defects on the face of a complaint; a motion challenging subject matter jurisdiction and supported by an affidavit is more properly brought under section 2–619, but misdesignation does not require reversal absent prejudice.

Borowiec v. Gateway 2000, Inc. Corrected 5/6/04 · filed 2004-04-01

Initially we note that Gateway’s motion to dismiss Borowiec’s complaint was for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and was supported by affidavit. The motion was more appropriately designated a motion pursuant to section 2–619 than a motion pursuant to section 2–615. Borowiec, however, was not prejudiced by the improper designation, and responded appropriately to the motion. Accordingly, we will consider the motion as though it had been filed under section 2-619.

Section 2-615 is not the proper basis for a subject matter jurisdiction challenge, but using it by mistake warrants reversal only if the opposing party was prejudiced.

Borowiec v. GATEWAY 2000, INC. · filed 2004-04-01

Where, as here, a defendant in a civil action challenges the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction, dismissal is properly sought under section 2 619(a)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1) (West 1998)), rather than section 2-615. Sound practice dictates that motions be correctly designated. Nevertheless, reversal based on misdesignation is necessary only if the error has prejudiced the nonmoving party. ... There is nothing in the record before us to suggest that Borowiec suffered any such prejudice.

A section 2-615 motion challenges whether a complaint states a legally sufficient cause of action, but when combined with a personal jurisdiction objection, jurisdiction must be decided first.

Ryburn v. People · filed 2004-06-18

We agree with their reasoning and hold that when faced with a motion combining an objection to personal jurisdiction and a section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the trial court must address the jurisdictional issue first.

A section 2-615 motion remains pending when the trial court stays the claims without ruling on it; the court may address the motion after the plaintiff amends the complaint.

Board of Managers of Chestnut Hills Condominium Ass'n v. Pasquinelli, Inc. · filed 2004-12-23

Therefore, the section 2—615 motion to dismiss remains pending. Having concluded that counts I, II and IV are not properly subject to arbitration, we hold as follows: (1) the stay that operates as an injunction preventing the Association from proceeding with its case is hereby vacated; and (2) this matter is remanded to the trial court to allow the Association to amend its complaint and thereafter address Pasquinelli’s section 2—615 motion to dismiss.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action.

Sutherland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. · filed 2005-03-28

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint by alleging defects appearing on its face. ... Such a motion should be granted if the complaint does not allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal when defects on the face of a complaint make it legally insufficient.

Brewster v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center · filed 2005-09-19

A motion to dismiss under section 2 — 615 of the Code challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint by alleging defects on its face.

Section 2-615(a) motions test the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's claim, and rulings on them receive de novo review.

Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co. · filed 2006-06-22(a)

A motion to dismiss under section 2-615(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2002)) tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's claim; a motion to dismiss under section 2-619(a) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a) (West 2000)) admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim, but asserts certain defects or defenses outside the pleading that defeat the claim. See Provenzale v. Forister, 318 Ill.App.3d 869, 878, 252 Ill.Dec. 808, 743 N.E.2d 676 (2001). Under either section, our standard of review is de novo.

On a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the court accepts well-pleaded facts as true and draws reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

Grimes v. Saikley · filed 2009-03-10

In ruling on a motion to dismiss under either section 2 — 615 or section 2 — 619 of the Code, the trial court accepts all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the nonmoving party.

Section 2-615 permits a motion to dismiss a petition for legal insufficiency; dismissal is improper when the petition adequately pleads its required elements.

Hanson v. De Kalb County State's Attorney's Office · filed 2009-05-27

That part of Hanson’s response was equivalent to a motion to dismiss under section 2 — 615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 2006)). As the Department had adequately pleaded diligence in raising its defense, diligence in filing its petition, and a meritorious defense, the court erred in granting Hanson’s motion.

On a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, a court must accept well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences as true.

DeHart v. DeHart · filed 2013-04-26

When ruling on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences that may arise from them.

Section 2-615 tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency; a statute-of-frauds defense is an affirmative matter that should be raised under section 2-619.

Armagan v. Pesha · filed 2014-05-01

Therefore, the defendants improperly raised the statute of frauds in a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, which attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

Section 2-615 tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint on its face, and a dismissal under it is reviewed de novo.

Sunlitz Holding Company v. Trading Block Holdings, Inc. · filed 2014-08-14

As a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint on its face, we review the grant or denial of such a motion de novo.

Section 2-615 governs a motion that challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on its allegations, even if the motion is labeled as brought under section 2-619.

Vicars-Duncan v. Tactikos · filed 2014-10-03

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.

A section 2-615 motion tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint on its face, and a ruling on the motion is reviewed de novo.

Sunlitz Holding Co. v. Trading Block Holdings, Inc. · filed 2014-10-16

As a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint on its face, we review the grant or denial of such a motion de novo.

A section 2-615 motion cannot resolve a factual dispute over probable cause when the complaint alleges that the underlying suit was filed for an improper purpose.

Grundhoefer v. Sorin · filed 2014-12-12

Further, although the allegations in the Sorins’ suit may allege probable cause, that in itself cannot support a section 2-615 dismissal of Grundhoefer’s malicious prosecution claim where she alleged the Sorins filed the suit for improper reasons.

A motion’s failure to specify section 2-615 does not require reversal when the parties understood and argued the issue and the nonmovant suffered no prejudice.

Krause v. USA Docufinish · filed 2015-03-11

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 motions challenge the legal sufficiency of a pleading, and orders granting them are reviewed de novo.

Ferris, Thompson, and Zweig, Ltd. v. Esposito · filed 2016-08-10

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of a pleading. Vernon v. Schuster, 179 Ill. 2d 338, 344 (1997). We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss under section 2-615.

Section 2-615 tests whether a complaint states a cause of action; the court reads the pleadings and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

In re Parentage of A.H. · filed 2017-01-27

A section 2-615 motion questions whether a complaint states a cause of action. Id. at 488. When ruling on a ... motion to dismiss under either section 2-615 or 2-619 of the Code, the court must interpret all pleadings and supporting documents in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Section 2-615(a) motions test whether a complaint is legally sufficient based on defects apparent on its face.

Englum v. The City of Charleston · filed 2017-06-13(a)

We conclude that the pleading was appropriately construed as a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2012)).

Section 2-615(a) governs motions challenging the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face.

Englum v. City of Charleston · filed 2017-07-28(a)

We conclude that the pleading was appropriately construed as a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2012)).

Section 2-615 governs a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, even when the motion also cites section 2-619.

Taliani v. Resurreccion · filed 2019-02-06

Although the motion to dismiss referred to both sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2012)), based upon the allegations that were made in the motion, it is more properly categorized as being just a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, as the section 2-619 portion of the motion alleged the failure to state a cause of action as the affirmative matter that defeated plaintiff’s claim. We will, therefore, treat the motion as being a section 2-615 motion to dismiss.

Section 2-615 motions to dismiss test a complaint’s legal sufficiency based on defects apparent on its face.

Doe v. Coe · filed 2019-12-10

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face.

A motion challenging the sufficiency of a complaint belongs under section 2-615; an incorrect label does not require reversal when the plaintiff treated the motion as a section 2-615 motion and did not challenge the label on appeal.

Hervey v. Skeens · filed 2021-03-22

Initially, we note defendants acknowledge their motion to dismiss should have been filed under section 2-615 of the Procedure Code, as opposed to section 2-619, because it “attacked the sufficiency of [plaintiff’s] complaint ***.” 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2018). ... Plaintiff makes no attempt on appeal to challenge the trial court’s dismissal order on the ground that defendants filed an improperly labeled motion to dismiss, and the record shows plaintiff consistently treated the motion as a section 2-615 motion. Under these circumstances, we decline to reverse in reliance on defendants’ improper labeling of their motion to dismiss.

Section 2-615 motions test a complaint’s legal sufficiency; courts accept well-pled facts and reasonable inferences as true and review dismissals de novo.

Village of Kirkland v. Kirkland Properties Holdings Co., LLC I · filed 2022-04-21

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint and asserts that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2020). When ruling on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the trial court must accept as true all well-pled facts, as well as any reasonable inferences that may arise from them. Cochran, 2017 IL 121200, ¶ 11. We review section 2-615 dismissals de novo. Id.

Section 2-615 allows a motion to dismiss that challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects on its face.

Remprex, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, Syndicates 2623/623 · filed 2023-03-31

A motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint by alleging defects on its face.

A section 2-615 motion challenges defects apparent on the face of a complaint, and an order granting the motion is reviewed de novo.

Alsterda v. Dart · filed 2024-03-11

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2022)). Such a motion “challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face,” and an order granting such a motion is reviewed de novo.

A section 2-615 motion tests a complaint’s legal sufficiency based on defects apparent on its face, and an order granting the motion is reviewed de novo.

Alsterda v. Dart · filed 2024-04-29

The trial court granted the motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2022)). Such a motion “challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face,” and an order granting such a motion is reviewed de novo.

A section 2-615 dismissal is reviewed de novo and is proper only when no set of facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Makiel v. Illinois State Police · filed 2024-05-24

We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2020). ... We will dismiss only if “it is clear no set of facts can be proven that will entitle the plaintiff to relief.”

A motion challenging a complaint’s legal sufficiency satisfies section 2-615 even if it cites a different dismissal provision.

Staake v. Loftus · filed 2025-10-27(a)

By denying the legal sufficiency of plaintiff’s complaint, Loftus’s grounds for dismissal satisfied section 2-615.

Section 2-615 motions address defects on the face of the complaint.

Heiden v. Village of Westmont · filed 2026-03-05

A section 2-615 motion is solely concerned with defects on the face of the complaint.

Section 2-615 does not permit dismissal of an otherwise sufficient complaint merely because its demand for damages is excessive.

Anzalone v. Kragness · filed 2005-03-07

A section 2 — 615 motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint by alleging defects appearing on its face. ... Granted, the amount of $100,000 claimed by plaintiff as damages is excessive under the existing precedent; nevertheless, that is not a proper basis for dismissing the complaint.

Section 2-615 applies only to pleadings, so it cannot be used to strike a motion for Rule 137 sanctions.

In Re Marriage of Nesbitt · filed 2007-11-14

Sections 2 — 619 and 2 — 615 of the Code apply only to pleadings. ... A motion for Rule 137 sanctions is not a pleading and, thus, is not capable of being stricken under either section.

Section 2-615 permits a court to strike legally insufficient portions of a pleading.

Keating v. 68th & Paxton, L.L.C. · filed 2010-04-27

Section 2-615 provides that a pleading or portion thereof may be stricken because it is substantially insufficient in law. ... For these reasons, defendants correctly sought relief under section 2-615 in this case.

Section 2-615 allows a court to strike an affirmative defense that is legally insufficient.

Hartmann Realtors v. Biffar · filed 2014-06-25

A motion to strike an affirmative defense pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2012)) challenges the legal sufficiency of the affirmative defense.

Section 2-615(a) permits a court to strike allegations that are immaterial to the claim.

Doe v. Coe · filed 2018-03-30(a)

The alleged actions of FCCD and James following Jane’s accusations and Coe’s arrest are simply neutral on the question of whether those parties acted culpably prior to the alleged rape. Consequently, the allegations are immaterial and were properly stricken.

Section 2-615(a) permits a court to strike complaint allegations that are immaterial to the claim.

Doe v. Coe · filed 2018-07-27(a)

FCCD and James brought the motion pursuant to section 2-615(a) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2014)), which permits the trial court to strike “immaterial matter” from a complaint. ... The alleged actions of FCCD and James following Jane’s accusations and Coe’s arrest are simply neutral on the question of whether those parties acted culpably prior to the alleged rape. Consequently, the allegations are immaterial and were properly stricken.

Section 2-615 permits a motion to strike a pleading for legal defects apparent on its face.

In re I.M. · filed 2023-04-28

Although not expressly designated as such, the State’s motion to strike respondent’s petition for a certificate of innocence was argued and ruled upon as a motion with respect to the pleadings under section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2020)). A section 2-615 motion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading by alleging defects on the face of the pleading. ... Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision to strike his petition.

Section 2-615 applies only to pleadings and cannot be used to strike a motion to reconsider.

In re Marriage of Bibber · filed 2024-05-30(a)

Because section 2-615 applies only to pleadings, it is improper to strike a motion under section 2-615.

Section 2-615 permits a court to strike an affirmative defense that fails to plead facts establishing an essential element, while accepting its well-pleaded facts as true.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. BV Hotels, Inc. · filed 2024-06-20

A section 2-615 motion to strike an affirmative defense, like all section 2-615 motions, admits the well-pleaded facts of the affirmative defense and challenges only the legal sufficiency of the defense. ... Therefore, BV Hotels did not adequately plead laches.

Section 2-615 permits a court to strike an affirmative defense that is legally insufficient on its face, while accepting its well-pleaded facts as true.

In re Estate of Butts · filed 2026-02-06

A section 2-615 motion to strike an affirmative defense admits all well-pleaded facts constituting the defenses and attacks only the legal sufficiency of the pleading based on defects apparent on its face.

Section 2-615 tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading; denying a motion under it does not prevent summary judgment after discovery.

Fichtel v. Board of Directors of the River Shore of Naperville Condominium Ass'n · filed 2009-04-21

In contrast, a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code only tests the legal sufficiency of a pleading. ... The trial court’s decisions were not inconsistent; they simply reflected the differences inherent in the two types of motions.

A section 2-615 motion is based on the pleadings rather than the underlying facts, so a ruling on that motion does not establish facts for summary judgment.

In re Estate of Hirschfeld · filed 2021-02-16

Accordingly, a significant difference between section 2-615 motions and motions for summary judgment is a section 2-615 motion is based on the pleadings rather than on the underlying facts.

Surviving a motion under section 2-615 establishes that a claim may proceed beyond the pleading stage, but does not establish that it will withstand summary judgment.

Robinson v. City of Chicago · filed 2025-03-24

Hanna II involved a motion to dismiss for legal insufficiency under section 2-615(a) (id. § 2-615(a)), and Hanna III involved a motion for judgment on the pleadings under section 2-615(e) (id. § 2-615(e)). In neither of these cases were we presented with the issue—nor did we rule—that the allegations of the third amended complaint would be sufficient to overcome the rational basis test at future stages of the case.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal of a tax uniformity challenge when the reasonableness of the classification can be decided as a matter of law.

Jacobsen v. King · filed 2012-06-11

Although a section 2-615 motion is often inappropriate for a uniformity challenge, it may be used when the reasonableness of a classification is to be determined as a matter of law.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal of a uniformity challenge when the classification’s reasonableness can be decided as a matter of law and no facts are disputed.

Friedman v. White · filed 2015-08-13

At the same time, a section 2-615 motion is often inappropriate for a uniformity challenge, but it may be used when a classification’s reasonableness is determined as a matter of law. Jacobsen v. King, 2012 IL App (2d) 110721, ¶ 15. As there are no disputed facts in this case, a section 2-615 motion was appropriate.

Section 2-615 permits a motion to dismiss a uniformity challenge when the classification’s reasonableness can be decided as a matter of law and no facts are disputed.

Friedman v. White · filed 2016-01-12

At the same time, a section 2-615 motion is often inappropriate for a uniformity challenge, but it may be used when a classification’s reasonableness is determined as a matter of law. Jacobsen v. King, 2012 IL App (2d) 110721, ¶ 15. As there are no disputed facts in this case, a section 2-615 motion was appropriate.

Section 2-615's pleading sufficiency test applies to a Rule 224 petition seeking to identify a potential defendant in a defamation case.

Hadley v. Doe · filed 2014-05-08

In this way, subjecting a Rule 224 petition to the scrutiny provided by section 2-615 guards against constitutional concerns arising from disclosing a potential defendant’s identity.

Section 2-615 applies to pleadings, so it cannot be used to dismiss a motion for temporary relief in a pending case.

In re Marriage of Engst · filed 2014-05-19

Therefore, Michelle’s petition for exclusive possession of the marital residence was not subject to dismissal pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code and, on that basis, we find the trial court committed no error in denying David’s 2-615 motion to dismiss.

Section 2-615 allows a court to strike an affirmative defense that is legally insufficient.

Hartmann Realtors v. Biffar · filed 2014-08-01

A motion to strike an affirmative defense pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2012)) challenges the legal sufficiency of the affirmative defense.

Section 2-615 permits a defendant to raise an affirmative defense apparent on the face of the complaint.

O'Callaghan v. Satherlie · filed 2015-08-25

Because the absolute attorney litigation privilege appears on the face of the complaint, the motion was appropriately filed under section 2-615.

An affirmative defense may be stricken under section 2-615 when its allegations are conclusory.

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Szpara · filed 2016-02-19

Defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaim were struck pursuant to sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 2012)). ... Moreover, we agree with plaintiff that the amended third and fourth affirmative defenses were properly stricken because their allegations were conclusory.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal of an affirmative defense for legal insufficiency while treating its well-pleaded facts as true.

Northbrook Bank & Trust Company v. 2120 Division LLC · filed 2016-02-23

A motion to dismiss an affirmative defense pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as with all section 2-615 motions, admits all well-pled facts constituting the defense and attacks only the legal sufficiency of those facts.

A section 2-615 motion may raise an affirmative defense when the facts supporting it appear in the complaint.

Webb v. Holmes · filed 2018-09-14

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.

Section 2-615 permits a court to strike an affirmative defense when its well-pleaded facts are legally insufficient.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Jones · filed 2020-09-03

A motion to dismiss an affirmative defense pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code, as with all section 2-615 motions, admits all well-pled facts constituting the defense and attacks only the legal sufficiency of those facts.

Section 2-615 allows a court to consider an affirmative defense apparent on the face of a pleading when deciding a motion to dismiss.

Dent v. Constellation NewEnergy, Inc. · filed 2022-04-21

In summary, then, we find that the appellate court erred in holding that a section 2-615 motion to dismiss cannot consider affirmative defenses apparent on the face of the petition, such as the existence of qualified privilege.

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

Eagle Trust Fund v. Miller · filed 2022-08-08

Because the absolute litigation privilege is apparent on the face of the complaint, the motion was properly filed under 2-615.

Section 2-615 permits an affirmative defense to stand when its well-pleaded facts sufficiently state a defense.

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Catchins · filed 2023-05-05

We find that this allegation was sufficient to withstand Reverse Mortgage’s section 2-615 motion to strike.

A section 2-615 motion to dismiss an affirmative defense admits well-pleaded facts and tests only their legal sufficiency.

Smart Plastics, LLC v. Abrams · filed 2026-03-09

A motion to dismiss an affirmative defense pursuant to section 2–615, as with all section 2-615 motions, admits all well-pleaded facts constituting the defense, and attacks only the legal sufficiency of those facts.

On a section 2-615 motion, a court may take judicial notice of public records even if they were not attached to the complaint.

Phillips v. DePaul University · filed 2014-09-26

Accordingly, in analyzing the section 2-615 dismissal order, we may take judicial notice of the ABA Guides as public records even though they were not attached to the first-amended class action complaint.

In deciding a section 2-615 motion, a court may take judicial notice of public records even if they were not attached to the complaint.

Phillips v. DePaul University · filed 2014-11-06

Accordingly, in analyzing the section 2-615 dismissal order, we may take judicial notice of the ABA Guides as public records even though they were not attached to the first-amended class action complaint.

On a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the court may consider matters subject to judicial notice.

Amer v. Rider · filed 2024-08-30

When the circuit court reviews a motion to dismiss under section 2-615, it may consider matters that are subject to judicial notice.

Section 2-615 permits dismissal for failure to join necessary parties only when their indispensability appears on the face of the complaint.

City of Elgin v. Arch Insurance Company · filed 2016-02-10(a)

Thus, dismissal under section 2-615 for failure to join all necessary parties is warranted only when the existence of indispensable unnamed persons or entities appears on the face of the complaint.

Section 2-615(a) allows necessary parties to be added when their absence is alleged; their omission does not warrant dismissal with prejudice.

Mad Cow Oil Co. v. H&R Oil Properties, Inc. · filed 2025-10-24(a)

That proposition is true, as is the rule that allows for the addition of necessary parties under section 2-615 where it is alleged that all necessary parties have not been joined. See 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a) (West 2022); City of Elgin, 2015 IL App (2d) 150013, ¶¶ 37-38. Therefore, even if these entities could be construed as “known” parties, they can be added to the complaint as necessary parties. Dismissal of the complaint, with prejudice, would not be warranted.

Section 2-615 permits a party to challenge part of a complaint and allows a court to terminate litigation in whole or in part.

Joiner v. SVM Management, LLC · filed 2020-02-20(a), (d)

The Code specifically permits a party to attack the entirety of a complaint or a “portion thereof” and allows the court “to terminate the litigation in whole or in part.” 735 ILCS 5/2-615(a), (d) (West 2016). A litigant is not required to admit or deny all counts of a complaint in other circumstances, and we do not require it when a defendant tenders a named plaintiff’s claim when the plaintiff alleges a class action.