The Times They Are a-Changin': Madison County Revises Standing Order for Asbestos Lawsuits
ABSTRACT: In 1995, the Circuit Court of Madison County entered a Standing Case Management Order governing all asbestos lawsuits filed in that County. The court has amended the Order on a few occasions, most notably in 2011 and 2016. On September 5, 2024, the court revised several portions of the Order. In this blog post, we discuss the most significant changes to the Order.
On November 17, 1995, the Circuit Court of Madison County issued a Standing Case Management Order for All Asbestos Personal Injury Cases. The Order purportedly intended to address the backlog of asbestos lawsuit filings in Madison County and increase efficiency of the asbestos docket. In January 2011 and August 2016, the court amended the Standing Order. Following those revisions, the court entered a supplement to the Standing Order in March 2020 to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Otherwise, the court left the Standing Order unchanged.
Recently, on September 5, 2024, Judge Andrew Carruthers, who presides over the Madison County asbestos docket, entered a revised version of the Standing Order. Asbestos lawsuit defense attorneys should be aware that under the revised Order, it is now easier for plaintiffs’ firms to obtain trial settings. For example, prior to the recent revisions, the Standing Order limited the number of cases plaintiffs’ firms could set for trial each year. The Revised Standing Order no longer contains a firm limit on the number of trial settings allowed per year. Rather, the court will “use its discretion as needed to limit the maximum number of cases to set for “first out” trial status.”
Similarly, the Standing Order allowed no more than two plaintiffs’ firms to set cases for trial on a specific trial docket. In the Revised Standing Order, this limitation has been removed.
Additionally, the Standing Order previously limited the number of “priority” cases to 19 per trial docket. Priority cases are those that are considered “trial-ready.” Beginning in 2025, the court will use its discretion as needed to determine whether the total number of cases identified as priority cases assigned to trial by a single plaintiffs’ firm in a given trial week exceeds what is reasonable.
The Revised Standing Order also changes the procedure for obtaining an expedited trial setting. Previously, a plaintiff who was 70 years or older and had been diagnosed with a “very limited life expectancy” could obtain an expedited trial setting, meaning a trial date sooner than 15 months from the date of filing the complaint. Under the Revised Order, any plaintiff who is 67 years or older, and/or who has a very limited life expectancy due to a condition other than mesothelioma, may be entitled to an expedited trial date, which now means within one year of the hearing on the motion to expedite trial. Moreover, a plaintiff diagnosed with mesothelioma may receive an expedited trial setting to commence within six months of the hearing on the motion to expedite trial. The Revised Order also no longer requires a plaintiff to disclose a diagnosing report or physician letter to obtain an expedited trial setting. Instead, whether to grant an expedited trial setting is left to the court’s discretion.
Another change involves jurors and trial attendance. Previously, the court did not require counsel to attend the first day of trial in a case unless the parties actually intended to proceed with trial. Rather, counsel was required to appear for a mandatory settlement/pre-trial conference the Wednesday before the trial setting and advise the court whether trial would proceed in any cases the following week. Under the Revised Order, plaintiff’s counsel with a case set for trial the following week is required to notify the court no later than 3:00 p.m. on the last business day of the week prior whether counsel intends to proceed to trial the following week. The Revised Order, however, allows plaintiffs’ firms to request that jurors be “held over” until the second business day of the following week (i.e., the week of trial). If this occurs, counsel for the parties is required to appear for an additional mandatory settlement conference on the first business day of the following week.
There are other procedural and substantive changes to the Revised Standing Order, which can be found at this link. One change worth noting, because it may easily be forgotten or overlooked, involves notices of hearing. When filing a notice of hearing, counsel is now required to include within the notice the date the pleading or motion was filed.related services
About Illinois Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Illinois Law Blog examines significant developments, trends and changes in Illinois law on a broad range of topics that are of interest to Illinois practitioners and to businesses evaluating risks under Illinois law or managing litigation subject to Illinois law. Learn more about the editor, Lisa Larkin.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Illinois Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Illinois Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Illinois Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.