Improperly Bundled Claims in Illinois Complaints: A Drafting Trap Under 735 ILCS 5/2-603
Civil pleading is often treated as a race to include enough facts and theories to survive dismissal. But in Illinois practice, more is not always better, especially when multiple claims, legal theories, or recovery requests are bundled into a single count.
Section 2-603 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure imposes a simple but important pleading rule that a complaint must be plain, concise, and organized so that each separate cause of action is stated, designated, and numbered in its own count. Practically, it means that one count should not do the work of several.
This issue often arises when a complaint incorporates all prior paragraphs into each successive count, including allegations and legal theories from earlier causes of action. Such drafting format may seem efficient, but it can create confusion, especially when there are several counts. By the time the defendant reaches Count IV or Count V, the count may contain not only the facts relevant to that claim, but also unrelated allegations, earlier legal theories, and requests for relief that do not relate to all counts. The result is a pleading that may obscure specific allegations against the defendant and the legal theory supporting each requested recovery.
Illinois courts have repeatedly emphasized that pleadings must be clear enough for the opposing party to understand the claims and respond. A complaint may violate Section 2-603 when it is so confusing, redundant, or jumbled that the defendant cannot reasonably determine the allegations being asserted or prepare an adequate answer or defense. The Illinois Appellate Court for the First District in Rubino v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 324 Ill. App. 3d 931 (1st Dist. 2001) held that “No party should be called upon to answer redundant, jumbled and cryptic pleadings filed by plaintiff’s counsel, and no court should be forced to expend so much time and energy attempting to decipher them.”
The rule becomes especially important when a plaintiff asserts different legal theories arising from the same general relationship or transaction. For example, a contractual relationship may give rise to both a breach of contract theory and a tort theory. But Illinois law recognizes that when both are pleaded in the same complaint, they should be set out in separate counts. Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407, 420 (1981). The same principle applies where separate forms of recovery are sought. Each cause of action upon which a separate recovery might be had should be pleaded separately. See 735 ILCS 5/2-603(b); Hartshorn v. State Farm Insurance Co., 361 Ill. App. 3d 731, 735 (2d Dist. 2005).
The First District’s decision in 933 Van Buren Condominium Ass’n v. Van Buren, 2016 IL App (1st) 143490, illustrates the point. In Buren, the court addressed counterclaims in which indemnity and breach of contract theories were not clearly separated. Because the pleading combined distinct theories without proper delineation, the court declined to consider the breach of contract claims independently from the indemnity claims. The problem was not simply stylistic. Here, the structure of the pleading affected how the court analyzed the claims.
Here, the drafting lesson is simple. Do not make the court or the opposing party guess where one claim ends and another begins.
A complaint should identify the factual allegations common to all claims, but each count should then be carefully limited to the allegations and legal theory supporting that specific cause of action. If a plaintiff seeks recovery under breach of contract, negligence, indemnity, fraud, statutory violation, or another distinct theory, each should ordinarily receive its own separately numbered count. Likewise, incorporation by reference should be used with care. Incorporating every prior paragraph into every later count may unintentionally import unrelated claims and theories, creating the very confusion Section 2-603 is designed to prevent.
This is not merely a formal pleading preference. Improper bundling can prejudice defendants by depriving them of fair notice. It can also invite motions to dismiss, motions for a more definite statement, unnecessary repleading, delay, and judicial frustration. A complaint that says too much in one count may ultimately say too little with clarity.
The better practice here would be to—
- State the common facts once.
- Separate each cause of action into its own count.
- Match each count with its own legal theory, elements, supporting allegations, and requested relief.
- Avoid wholesale incorporation of unrelated prior allegations.
- Draft in a way so that the defendant can admit, deny, or otherwise respond with clarity without having to untangle multiple claims from a single paragraph cluster.
In Illinois pleading practice, clarity is not superficial. It is procedural protection. Section 2-603 reminds us that a well-drafted complaint is not measured only by how much it alleges, but by whether each claim is presented in a way that can be understood, answered, and adjudicated.
By Lakshmi Suseel, Senior Associate – Legal
For more practical litigation drafting tips, pleading and legal research insights, follow LawCompany