Case Activity (1170)

1. Order | Filed: June 25, 2026 | Entered: June 25, 2026 McDonalds USA LLC v. FFIV Dixie Highway 824-830 LLC

   Contract: Other | Illinois Central

   Order on Motion for Leave to File

   TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge Colin S. Bruce on 6-25-2026. Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 56 is DENIED. "District courts are entitled to 'considerable discretion in interpreting and applying their local rules[.]'" OSF Healthcare System v. Board of Trustees of SEIU Healthcare Illinois Home Care & Child Care Fund, 456 F. Supp. 3d 1018, 1029 (C.D. Ill. 2020) (quoting Cuevas v. United States, 317 F.3d 751, 752 (7th Cir. 2003)). The Local Rules of this District dictate that "[n]o reply to the response is permitted without leave of Court." CDIL-LR 7.1(B)(3). "Typically, reply briefs are permitted if the party opposing a motion has introduced new and unexpected issues in his response to the motion, and the Court finds that a reply from the moving party would be helpful to its disposition of the motion; the Court does not typically permit the moving party to file a reply in order to introduce new arguments or evidence that could have been included in the motion itself, or to rehash the arguments made in motion." Shefts v. Petrakis, No. 10-1104, at *8 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2011). Defendant makes no argument that Plaintiff included any new or unexpected issues in its Memorandum in Opposition. Defendant only argues that Plaintiff makes "incorrect arguments regarding the legal standard applicable to the motion" and Defendant "otherwise stands on its initial briefing and supporting materials..." The court can assess the validity and legal basis of Plaintiff's assertions on the filings already submitted by the parties. This is not a ground that supports the filing of a reply. (GL)

2. Order | Filed: June 23, 2026 | Entered: June 23, 2026 AGPM Farm Group LLC v. Johnson et al

   Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016) | Illinois Central

   Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

   TEXT ORDER: Defendant Marc Johnson's 5 Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading is GRANTED. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), courts may, for good cause, extend time when a request is made before the original deadline expires. Based on the circumstances discussed in Defendant Marc Johnson's motion, the Court finds good cause. The Court notes, however, that Johnson does not state whether Plaintiff opposes the extension, in violation of Civil Local Rule 6.1. Defendant is advised to follow all applicable local rules moving forward. Accordingly, Defendant Marc Johnson must file an answer or other responsive motion to Plaintiff's 1 complaint on or by July 14, 2026. Entered by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna on June 23, 2026. (NL)

3. 1168 additional result(s)