HB1391 amends Section 2-213 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure governing waiver of service of summons. The bill sets out the required contents of a plaintiff’s written notice and request for waiver, including that it be sent by first-class mail or equally reliable means, include the complaint, identify the court, explain the consequences of compliance or refusal, provide extra copies and prepaid means for returning the waiver, and allow at least 30 days to respond, or 60 days if the defendant is outside the United States.
The bill also clarifies the legal effect of a waiver. A defendant who signs a waiver does not give up objections to venue or personal jurisdiction, but if the waiver is timely returned, the defendant gets additional time to appear or answer: 60 days from the request date, or 90 days for defendants outside the United States. Once the waiver is filed, the case proceeds as if service had been completed, and no proof of service is required. If the defendant refuses or fails to return the waiver, the plaintiff must serve summons normally; however, a U.S.-based defendant who fails without good cause to return a requested waiver may be ordered to pay the later service costs and related motion expenses, including attorney’s fees.
Impact
HB1391 would update Illinois civil procedure rules to encourage voluntary waiver of service and reduce the need for formal service of summons in civil cases. It affects plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation by standardizing notice requirements, extending response deadlines for waived service, and authorizing courts to shift service-related costs to defendants who unreasonably refuse to waive service. The bill amends 735 ILCS 5/2-213 and would operate alongside existing Supreme Court rules governing service and waiver procedures.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript, recorded votes, or formal opposition, so there is no documented debate to indicate strong controversy. Based on the bill text, the measure appears procedural and administrative in nature, aimed at improving efficiency and reducing unnecessary service costs rather than changing substantive rights. The overall sentiment is therefore best characterized as neutral to likely favorable, with the bill framed as a practical civil procedure update.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the cost-shifting provision for defendants who fail, without good cause, to return a waiver requested by a U.S.-based plaintiff. That language could be viewed as encouraging cooperation and reducing litigation costs, but also as imposing penalties on defendants who choose not to waive service. Another possible issue is the interaction between the waiver process and defendants’ rights to contest venue or personal jurisdiction, though the bill expressly preserves those objections. No specific stakeholders or objections are identified in the available materials.