Case Activity (1293)

1. Filed: August 10, 2026 | Entered: August 10, 2026 NHC LLC v. Centaur Construction Company Inc. et al

   190 Contract: Other | Illinois Northern

   Disclosure

   DISCLOSURE of Monthly Expenses (July 1-31, 2026) by Peter Alexopoulos. (Received via online pro se portal on 8/10/26). (gcy, ) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

2. Filed: August 08, 2026 | Entered: August 08, 2026 NHC LLC v. Centaur Construction Company Inc. et al

   190 Contract: Other | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: This long-closed case involves a commercial dispute. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in August 2022; the defendants appealed; and the court of appeals affirmed the judgment in September 2025. There were protracted post-judgment collection proceedings before the Court, and what is left of those is on hold due to the bankruptcy filing of one of the judgment debtors, but that does not make this a pending case; it's essentially a largely moribund collection proceeding at this point. One of the trial witnesses, who was also involved in the collection proceedings, has sued the law firm that represented the defendants (and the witness), alleging malpractice. The case is pending before another judge in this District. The law firm has moved this Court for a finding that the witness's legal malpractice case is related to the present case under Local Rule 40.4. The Court denies the motion. First of all, the cases do not meet the definition of relatedness in LR 40.4(a) in any meaningful sense. The issues that remain before this Court--if there are any, given the judgment debtor's bankruptcy--involve the existence and collection of assets to satisfy the judgment going forward, which has no relationship with whether the law firm committed legal malpractice in representing the witness earlier. See LR 40.4(a)(2). And the cases grow out of the same transaction or occurrence only in the most attenuated way, in that they both ultimately trace back to the same underlying dispute. That does not meet the requirement of LR 40.4(a)(3) in the Court's view. But even if the cases were related under LR 40.4(a), not a single one of the four requirements for reassignment under LR 40.4(b) is met. The case before this Court is not "pending" in a meaningful way; it is closed. See LR 40.4(b)(1). Given the differences in issues, and the fact that the dispute over collection that involved the witness was adjudicated long ago, having one judge handle both is not likely to result in any saving of judicial time and effort, let alone a substantial saving as required. See LR 40.4(b)(2). The case before this Court--the earlier case--has progressed to the point that designating the malpractice case as related would be likely to delay the proceedings in the present case. See LR 40.4(b)(3). And there is no way that the two matters are "susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding," as required by LR 40.4(b)(4). For these reasons, the Court denies the motion for a finding of relatedness and reassignment 864 . (mk) (Entered: 08/08/2026)

3. 1291 additional result(s)