Case Activity (2495)

1. Order | Filed: July 24, 2026 | Entered: July 24, 2026 Netzband v. Clark Industrial Power LLC

   Civil Rights: Jobs | Illinois Central

   Order on Motion for Summary Judgment ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings 1 - Terminate Deadlines and Hearings

   TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge Colin S. Bruce on 7-24-2026. The parties have fully briefed Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 42 . Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Fact is not in compliance with Central District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1. To be sure, Facts number 1 through 27 are fully compliant. However, beginning with Fact 28 and continuing through Fact 41, under the section titled "Disputed Immaterial Facts and Blatant Inconsistencies," Defendant's stated facts become a hybrid of factual statements with citation to the record and argument. Defendant appears to be anticipating facts and argument that Plaintiff will raise and rebutting them in the Undisputed Material Fact section, which is improper. Such argument should be reserved for the argument section of the brief. Facts 28 through 41 also include multiple facts within each numbered fact. The result is a somewhat confusing, difficult-to-follow mixing of fact and argument in the wrong section of the brief. The Undisputed Material Fact section should contain only individually numbered facts, supported by a clear citation to the record. See Central District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1(D)(1)(b).
   
   Plaintiff's Response, at pages 1 and 2, is similarly confusing. Under "Undisputed Material Facts," Plaintiff lists Facts 1 through 13, but these numbers do not correspond to the numbers in Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Fact. If Plaintiff meant that these facts are undisputed, the structure of the Response is in violation of the Local Rules. See Central District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(b)(1) ("List by number each fact from section B of the motion for summary judgment which is conceded to be undisputed and material."). Moreover, while Plaintiff's Response contains disputations of Defendant's asserted material facts, with citations to the record, it does not contain a separate section of "Additional Facts" as required by Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(b)(5). If Plaintiff wants the court to consider facts in addition to those put forth by Defendant, she must include a separate section of her own additional facts in compliance with the Local Rule. Courts are entitled to expect strict compliance with the Local Rule regarding summary judgment. Thornton v. M7 Aerospace LP, 796 F.3d 757, 769 (7th Cir. 2015). "All motions for summary judgment and responses and replies thereto must comply with the requirements of this rule[,]" and [a]ny filings not in compliance may be stricken by the Court." Central District of Illinois Local Rule 7.1(D). The parties' summary judgment briefs 42 , 46 , and 51 are hereby STRICKEN pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(D). Defendant is directed to resubmit its summary judgment motion by August 7, 2026. Plaintiff's response will be due by August 14, 2026, and Defendant's reply by August 21, 2026. The filings are to be in strict compliance with the Local Rules. As this amounts to little more than a restructuring of the facts section of the briefs, the court does not anticipate that more time will be needed. If the parties do require more time, they may file the appropriate motion. (ED)

2. Filed: July 22, 2026 | Entered: July 22, 2026 Kirby v. Sheehan

   470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: The telephonic status hearing previously set for 7/27/2026 is vacated. (mk) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

3. 2493 additional result(s)