Case Activity (12733)

1. Order | Filed: July 31, 2026 | Entered: July 31, 2026 Overton-Granado et al v. Queen et al

   Civil Rights: Other | Illinois Central

   Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

   TEXT ORDER: Plaintiffs have filed a 71 document entitled, "Plaintiff's Motion Regarding the Timeline of Waiver of Service and Related Service issues" In it, Plaintiffs explain that they sent waiver requests to four defendants: Jennifer Queen, Katherine Glover, Thomas Theleritis, and Linda Martin. They further explain that on July 22, 2026--six weeks later--three of those waivers were returned (for Queen, Glover, and Martin). As Plaintiffs recognize, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1)(F) requires parties requesting a waiver of service to "give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the request was sent... to return the waiver." Plaintiffs read this to mean that defendants must return waivers within 30 days, but that is incorrect. Rule 4(d)(1)(F) is a floor, not a ceiling. It establishes a minimum amount of time the plaintiff must give the defendant to sign the waivers; not a maximum amount of time in which a defendant must return them. On Plaintiff's own timeline, then, Defendants' decision to return the waivers forty-two days after receiving them was appropriate. Separately, Plaintiffs request myriad other forms of relief, none of which are proper. They ask the Court to "take judicial notice" of the service timeline. They ask the Court to "determine whether" Rule 4 was complied with. They ask the Court to "determine whether the delay" "had any effect on applicable deadlines." And they ask to the Court to "[a]dress the status of service" for Defendant Theleritis and order him to send the executed waiver. Each request rests on the same faulty premise. Rule 4(c)(1) clarifies that the "plaintiff"--not the Court--"is responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m)." Plaintiffs also ask the Court to "[d]etermine whether reimbursement of unnecessary service expenses is appropriate." But the Court does not have enough facts to determine whether Theleritis had "good cause" for not signing a waiver (assuming he did not sign it), so deciding that issue at this juncture would be inappropriate. Plaintiffs may file a separate motion for reimbursement of service expenses after Theleritis has appeared and been given an opportunity to respond. Finally, Plaintiffs ask the Court to "examine the circumstances surrounding the acceptance of service at the DCFS office location." But that would be wildly inappropriate--the Court is a neutral arbiter, not an investigative agency. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' 71 motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file the executed waivers of service on the docket so that the Court may establish a response deadline for the defendants who have returned a waiver. Assuming Plaintiffs do not receive a signed waiver from Defendant Theleritis, they must serve him in accordance with Rule 4(e). Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on July 31, 2026. (NL)

2. Order | Filed: July 31, 2026 | Entered: July 31, 2026 Lacey et al v. City of Bloomington

   Civil Rights: Other | Illinois Central

   Order on Motion to Dismiss ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines

   ORDER entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 7/31/2026. Defendant's 11 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are given leave to file a second amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this Order. Failure to amend in accordance with this Order will result in dismissal of the case with prejudice. See full Written Order. (DW)

3. 12731 additional result(s)