Stoneback v. Olickal

── Stoneback v. Olickal ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 240650-U No. 1-24-0650 Order filed April 16, 2026 Fourth Division NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ DENYSE WANG STONEBACK, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 23-L-062022 ) KEVIN OLICKAL, FRIENDS OF KEVIN OLICKAL, ) Honorable and GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION PAC, ) Jeffrey L. Warnick, ) Judge Presiding. Defendants-Appellants. ) JUSTICE LYLE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Ocasio and Quish concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County where defendants failed to satisfy their burden to show that plaintiff filed her claims solely to interfere with and burden defendants’ constitutional rights. ¶2 Defendants Kevin Olickal and Friends of Kevin Olickal (FOKO) (collectively, the “Olickal Defendants”), and Gun Violence Prevention PAC (GPAC) appeal from the circuit court’s denial of their motions to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff Denyse Wang Stoneback pursuant to the Citizen Participation Act (Act) (735 ILCS 110/1 et seq. (West 2022)) and section 2-619(a)(9) of No. 1-24-0650 the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2022)). Defendants asserted that Ms. Stoneback’s complaint, which asserted claims of defamation per se, false light, and conspiracy based on flyers defendants sent to voters during a primary campaign between Ms. Stoneback and Mr. Olickal, represented a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The circuit court disagreed, finding that defendants had failed to satisfy their burden under the Act to demonstrate that the claims in the complaint lacked merit and that the lawsuit was initiated in retaliation for defendants’ exercise of protected speech. ¶3 Defendants now appeal, contending that the circuit court erred in denying their motions to dismiss under the Act where the claims in Ms. Stoneback’s complaint are meritless and were filed solely to interfere with and burden defendants’ exercise of their right to petition, speak, or otherwise participate in government. Defendants assert that Ms. Stoneback’s claims are meritless because the statements in the flyers are nonactionable statements of opinion, the statements are true, and the statements are susceptible to an innocent construction. Defendants also assert that Ms. Stoneback’s claims do not fall into any of the limited categories that constitute defamation per se. Defendants further contend that Ms. Stoneback’s claims should be dismissed because they were filed in retaliation for defendants’ exercise of protected speech. Finally, defendants maintain that the circuit court’s ruling will have a “chilling effect” on future political speech that is crit