ELISHEI MEHEDINTI v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2002)

ORDER

This claim against the respondent's Secretary of State, alleging wrongful seizure of the Claimant's automobile and seeking $20,000 in damages, is before the court on the claimant's amended complaint and the respondent's second motion to dismiss.

The respondent's motion asserts a failure of the claimant to exhaust his alternative sources of recovery for the seized vehicle, which was not returned to him. Respondent contends that the claimant must pursue an action (a) against the individual to whom the car was returned (by the Secretary's police), on the theory that if claimant owns the car he can recover the car or its value from the party who wrongfully has it, or (b) against the individual (in Tennessee) who sold him the car or otherwise gave him possession of the vehicle, on the theory that that party did not provide adequate documentation of title transfer to the claimant and reported the vehicle stolen which together caused the seizure of the vehicle and its return to the third party that the former owner reported as the purchaser of the vehicle.

Claimant has not responded to this motion to dismiss. The court observes, for clarity, that although we are informed on the record that there is a dispute as to whether or not the claimant was the owner of the car who brought it to Illinois on his own, as he claims, or whether he was merely a hired driver who was delivering the car for the Tennessee seller to the Illinois buyer, as others claim and as was reported to the Secretary's police, that is a dispute that we disregard for purpose of the present motion, for which purpose was taken as true the Claimant's allegations of ownership of the seized vehicle.

We agree with the respondent that the Claimant must exhaust his remedies against the former owner/seller of the car or against the current possessor of the vehicle, or both. Claimant has provided no reason why he cannot do so or has not already done so. Indeed, if Claimant was the owner of the car, it is hard to understand why he would not bring a replevin action to get the vehicle itself back.

Accordingly, we will dismiss this claim for failure to exhaust alternative sources of recovery but without prejudice to renew this claim within six months, if the claimants exhaust or commence an action to exhaust his remedies can otherwise demonstrate the futility of exhaustion efforts. We do not place this claim on our general continuous docket because that has not been requested and because no exhaustion efforts are now being made.

WHEREFORE it is hereby ORDERED:

1. This claim is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with/26 of the Court of Claims Act;

2. This claim may be re-instated upon proper motion of the Claimant in accordance with this order within six months of the date

EPSTEIN, J.