Summary order filed                    NO. 5-08-0205
August 11, 2008;
Motion to publish granted                  IN THE
September 18, 2008.
                            APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                             FIFTH DISTRICT
________________________________________________________________________

TIMOTHY A. ROGERS and ALAN             ) Appeal from the
WESTFALL, on Behalf of Themselves      ) Circuit Court of
and All Others Similarly Situated,     ) Madison County.
                                       )
      Plaintiffs-Appellees,            )
                                       )
v.                                     ) No. 01-LM-1006
                                       )
TYSON FOODS, INC.,                     ) Honorable
                                       ) Ralph J. Mendelsohn,
      Defendant-Appellant.             ) Judge, presiding.
________________________________________________________________________

       JUSTICE SPOMER delivered the opinion of the court:

       The defendant, Tyson Foods, Inc., appeals from the order of the circuit court of

Madison County that denied its motion for a summary judgment. The defendant requested

a summary judgment in its favor on the basis that federal law preempts the claims of the

plaintiffs, Timothy A. Rogers and Alan Westfall, which they have brought on behalf of

themselves and others similarly situated. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the

defendant's appeal for a lack of appellate jurisdiction.

       The defendant's jurisdictional statement invokes the jurisdiction of this court to review

interlocutory orders granting, modifying, refusing, dissolving, or refusing to dissolve or

modify an injunction. See 188 Ill. 2d R. 307(a)(1). The defendant cites Kellerman v. MCI

Telecommunications Corp., 112 Ill. 2d 428, 438 (1986), May Department Stores Co. v.

Teamsters Union Local No. 743, 64 Ill. 2d 153, 158 (1976), and Crain v. Lucent

Technologies, Inc., 317 Ill. App. 3d 486, 492 (2000), for the proposition that the denial of a

motion asserting federal preemption as a complete defense to the plaintiffs' claims is subject


                                               1
to interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a) (188 Ill. 2d R. 307(a))

because the "preemption argument brings into issue the authority of the trial court to enter

the order appealed from." However, these cases dealt with whether the preemption issue was

within the scope of the review of a properly appealable order granting or denying a motion

to stay proceedings or a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Kellerman, 112 Ill. 2d at

434 ("[t]he trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss or stay the actions"); May

Department Stores Co., 64 Ill. 2d at 158 ("[t]he circuit court issued a temporary restraining

order and 10 days later allowed Venture's motion for a preliminary injunction"); Crain, 317

Ill. App. 3d at 491 ("the court held that plaintiff's action *** should not be stayed"). A stay

is considered injunctive in nature, and thus an order granting or denying a stay fits squarely

within Rule 307(a). See Lundy v. Farmers Group, Inc., 322 Ill. App. 3d 214, 216 (2001).

       The question in all the cases cited by the defendant was whether or not the preemption

issue was sufficiently related to the authority of the circuit court to enter the properly

appealable order granting or denying the injunction or stay in order to place the preemption

issue within the scope of review. The cited cases do not stand for the proposition that the

preemption issue is always appealable as an interlocutory appeal as of right under Illinois

Supreme Court Rule 307(a). To hold otherwise would be to ignore the long-standing

principle that only final judgments or orders are appealable unless the particular order falls

within one of the eight specified exceptions enumerated by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307.

Chapman v. United Insurance Co. of America, 234 Ill. App. 3d 968, 970 (1992) (citing In re

Marriage of Lentz, 79 Ill. 2d 400, 406-07 (1980)). Although there may be compelling public

policy reasons for allowing an interlocutory appeal of orders denying motions that establish

a complete affirmative defense such as federal preemption, we are powerless to grant such

interlocutory review. Unlike the courts in Kellerman, May Department Stores Co., and

Crain, this court is not in a position to determine whether the preemption issue is properly


                                              2
within the scope of review because an order denying a motion for a summary judgment is not

a final judgment and is not subject to interlocutory appeal as of right. See City of Chicago

ex rel. Charles Equipment Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 142 Ill. App. 3d

621, 629 (1986).

       For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the defendant's appeal for a lack of appellate

jurisdiction.



       Appeal dismissed.



       STEWART, P.J., and GOLDENHERSH, J., concur.




                                             3
                                           NO. 5-08-0205

                                              IN THE

                                APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                  FIFTH DISTRICT
___________________________________________________________________________________

      TIMOTHY A. ROGERS and ALAN            ) Appeal from the
      WESTFALL, on Behalf of Themselves     ) Circuit Court of
      and All Others Similarly Situated,    ) Madison County.
                                            )
           Plaintiffs-Appellees,            )
                                            )
      v.                                    ) No. 01-LM-1006
                                            )
      TYSON FOODS, INC.,                    ) Honorable
                                            ) Ralph J. Mendelsohn,
           Defendant-Appellant.             ) Judge, presiding.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Summary order Filed:        August 11, 2008
Motion to Publish Granted:  September 18, 2008
Opinion Filed:              September 18, 2008
___________________________________________________________________________________

Justices:           Honorable Stephen L. Spomer, J.

                 Honorable Bruce D. Stewart, P.J., and
                 Honorable Richard P. Goldenhersh, J.,
                 Concur
___________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys        Robert H. Shultz, Jr., Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.O. Box 467, 103 W .
for              Vandalia Street, Suite 100, Edwardsville, IL 62025; Karen L. Kendall, Heyl, Royster,
Appellant        Voelker & Allen, Suite 600 Bank One Building, 124 S.W. Adams Street, Peoria, IL
                 61602-1352; David B. Johnson, Alexa C. Warner, Sidley Austin, LLP, One South
                 Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603
___________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys        John W. Hoffman, Korein Tillery, LLC, One US Bank Plaza, 505 N. 7th Street, Suite
for              3600, St. Louis, MO 63101; Herman Watson, Jr., Rebekah Keith McKinney, Eric J.
Appellees        Artrip, Watson, Jimmerson, Martin, McKinney, Graffeo & Helms, P.C., 203 Greene
                 Street, P.O. Box 18368, Huntsville, AL 35804; J. Dudley Butler, J. Dudley Butler,
                 P.A., 499 A Breakwater Drive, Benton, M S 39039; Joe E. Whatley, Jr., Whatley,
                 Drake & Kallas, L.L.C., P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647; Ron Parry,
                 Parry, Deering, Futscher & Sparks, P.S.C., 128 East Second Street, P.O. Box 2618,
                 Covington, KY 41012-2618
___________________________________________________________________________________
