Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Odelson Murphey x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
440 Civil Rights: Other | Illinois Northern
Attorney
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Timothy Skorepa, Village of Summit by Shannon Cottrell (Cottrell, Shannon) (Entered: 08/04/2026)
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: As pointed out in footnote 1 to defendants' reply, Dkt. No. 93 at 5 n.1, several paragraphs of defendants' Local Rule 56.1(a)(2) statement of facts have been inaccurately numbered and/or quoted in plaintiff's response. After a cursory review, it appears that plaintiff omitted entirely paragraph four of defendants' fact statement and that the omission of paragraph four affected the quotations and numbering of the subsequent paragraphs. Regardless, plaintiff's response, Dkt. No. 86 , is impossible to follow. Compare Dkt. No. 86 at 3, with Dkt. No. 71 at 1. To make matters worse, many paragraphs of plaintiff's response to defendants' fact statement include cross-references to plaintiff's statement of additional facts. E.g., ¶¶ 13-15, 24, Dkt. No. 86 . These cross-references are not permitted by Local Rule 56.1, and their presence unnecessarily complicates the task of analyzing the parties' fact statements and responses in order to determine what, if anything, is genuinely disputed. See, e.g., Aponte v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n, 2025 WL 3098078, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2025), reconsideration denied 2025 WL 5091188 (Nov. 25, 2025) (citing Rivera v. Guevara, 319 F. Supp. 3d 1004, 1019 (N.D. Ill. 2018)). For these reasons, plaintiff's response to defendants' fact statement, Dkt. No. 86 , is stricken for failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1. Plaintiff is granted leave to refile his response to defendants' fact statement. However, both sides have briefed and argued summary judgment based on the stricken Local Rule 56.1 response. Since the parties are considerably more familiar with the implications of this order, they are given until and including August 11, 2026, to tell the court any reason why defendants' motion for summary judgment should not be re-briefed in full. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 08/04/2026)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.