Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC

── Strong v. Zubha Pop Foods LLC ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 242451-U No. 1-24-2451 Order filed April 15, 2026 Third 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 STANCE STRONG and KINISHA STRONG, ) Appeal from the Circuit ) Court of Cook County. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) No. 22 L 2605 v. ) ) ZUBHA POP FOODS LLC d/b/a POPEYES CHICKEN, ) Honorable ) Barbara N. Flores, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE MARTIN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lampkin and Rochford concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Plaintiffs’ briefs violate Illinois Supreme Court Rules. Plaintiffs’ briefs are hereby stricken and the appeal is dismissed, for failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341. ¶2 Plaintiffs Stance and Kinisha Strong, husband and wife, filed suit alleging Stance was injured after he fell outside defendant’s restaurant, Zubha Pop Foods LLC, doing business as Popeyes Chicken (Popeyes). Plaintiffs now appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ briefs are hereby stricken and the appeal is dismissed. 1 1 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order.  No. 1-24-2451 ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Plaintiffs filed a personal injury complaint in the law division on March 17, 2022. Plaintiffs alleged Stance broke his ankle due to defendant’s negligence of “not throwing salt around its premise who enter through front door.” Additionally, Kinisha alleged loss of consortium. Plaintiffs contended Stance slipped and fell outside of Popeyes on February 27, 2022. Plaintiffs’ complaint included numerous grainy, indiscernible black and white photographs. Attached to the complaint were various affidavits and an after-visit summary from a medical appointment. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed copious motions, including, inter alia, emergency motions for rule to show cause, motion for default judgment, a motion for summary judgment, and a “motion to pierce the corporate veil.” ¶5 On September 20, 2022, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment and set the case for a prove-up hearing on damages. Plaintiffs alleged damages in excess of $7 million dollars. The court entered a default judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on May 10, 2023, in the amount of $575,000. ¶6 The following month, defendant filed a motion to vacate the default judgment. The court granted defendant’s motion on June 21, 2023. The parties thereafter engaged in discovery and filed