Case Activity (10300)

1. Filed: July 31, 2026 | Entered: July 31, 2026 Chung v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

   791 Labor: E.R.I.S.A. | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Telephone ruling from the bench held on 7/31/2026. For the reasons stated on the record, defendants' motion for summary judgment, 242 , is granted in part (as to Counts I, II, and III) and denied in part (as to Counts IV and V). Plaintiff's motion to exclude, 269 ; 270 is denied on the merits as to Opinion 1 in Jack Abraham's Revised Expert Report [245-11] and otherwise denied without prejudice. The parties are directed to file by 8/28/2026 a joint status report with proposed next steps, settlement status, and any request for a status hearing. Mailed notice. (lxk, ) (Entered: 07/31/2026)

2. Filed: July 30, 2026 | Entered: July 30, 2026 Fox v. Gallagher Bassett Services, LLC et al

   470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff paid the filing fee and filed an amended complaint. But the amended complaint, like the prior complaint, joins unrelated claims against unrelated parties and also asserts claims in conclusory fashion, without factual support. She asserts a civil RICO claim against "all named defendants except 777 Trucking Company Inc," which appears to be her employer; a claim for violation of the ADA against 777 Trucking Company, Berkshire Hathaway, and others, claiming they "intentionally discriminated, retaliated, and coerced Plaintiff by utilizing a fraudulent database scheme and targeted hearing room intimidation to completely deny her contractually mandated medical accommodations and potentially shift costs onto public federal infrastructure"; and a claim against a law firm for breach of duty of loyalty in connection with a matter before the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission. See 10 . As before, joining claims and parties in a "mishmash of a complaint" remains improper. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). More fundamentally, the complaint also fails to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's allegations do not support the existence of diversity jurisdiction, and, although she alleges violation of the ADA, she has failed to allege facts to suggest that she has satisfied the prerequisites for bringing such a claim. E.g., Lozano v. Kay Mfg. Co., No. 04 C 2784, 2004 WL 1574247, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 2004) (observing that the ADA "makes filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and receiving a right to sue letter from it prerequisites to filing suit.")(citing 42 U.S.C. § 12117; Rush v. McDonald's Corp., 966 F.2d 1104, 1110 (7th Cir.1992)). For these reasons, the Court once again dismisses Plaintiff's complaint 10 without prejudice. The Court grants Plaintiff one last opportunity to amend, to the extent she can, consistent with her obligations under Rule 11, cure the deficiencies noted in this order. If Plaintiff fails to amend by 8/24/26, the Court will dismiss this case. The Court denies as moot Plaintiff's motion seeking more time to file an amended complaint, 7 . Mailed notice. (evw, ) (Entered: 07/30/2026)

3. 10298 additional result(s)