Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Perl Goodsnyder x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
440 Civil Rights: Other | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file motion to appoint special administrator 482 is denied. Rule 25(a)(1) requires a motion for substitution to be filed within 90 days of the statement of death. The Court has significant discretion in granting an extension under Rule 6(b). There is no dispute that service of the notice of death was properly effectuated. The motion fails to establish good cause and excusable neglect under Rule 6. Plaintiff's counsel admits that he knew about the defendant McWeenys' death at end of March 2025. Defendants' counsel also filed a notice of death on the docket on April 2, 2025. Despite this, Plaintiff's counsel waited almost a year, until March 6, 2026, to seek an extension of time from this Court. Plaintiff's counsel only excuse is that he was busy with other matters and thus missed the ECF filing of the notice of death. But almost one year has passed, and it is inexplicable that Plaintiff failed to move for an extension either within or closer to the 90-day period, with two attorneys on the docket representing Plaintiff in this very active litigation. So, there is no good cause. For the same reason, there is no excusable neglect. See Russell v. City of Milwaukee, 338 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2003). There is no reasonable basis for Plaintiff's failure for almost a year to pay attention to this particular defendant, knowing he was deceased, and not seek substitution of the party. Defendant has also sufficiently represented that it would be prejudiced, by not taking actions during discovery that it otherwise would if the deceased defendant was still in the case, and also that the decedent's spouse has relied on the lack of substitution to find closure on this matter. Finally, Rule 25(a)(1)'s plain language also does not require that defendant identify an administrator of an estate in the notice of death, so the Court finds that Plaintiff's claim that the 90-day period has not started is meritless, and it respectfully disagrees with district court cases that claim this requirement is "implicit" in Rule 25(a)(1). Certainly, Plaintiff was free to contact Defendant's counsel to ask about the identity of the administrator, and even ask for more time from this Court to substitute if one had not yet been identified. None of this occurred in this case. The motion hearing set for 6/9/26 is stricken as unnecessary. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/08/2026)
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: Defendants' unopposed motion (doc. # 539 ) for an extension to 6/9/26 to provide plaintiff's and Bell's counsel with the list of IDOC phone call recordings as discussed on the record on 5/27/26 (doc. # 533 ) is granted. Mailed notice. (jn,) (Entered: 06/05/2026)
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.