Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Sanford Kahn LLP
-
Filed: December 03, 2020 | Entered: December 03, 2020 Williams v. Mercy Housing
440(Civil Rights: Other) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sheila M. Finnegan: The District Court having terminated this case 106 , the referral in this case is closed. Mailed notice (sxw, ) (Entered: 12/03/2020)
-
Filed: December 02, 2020 | Entered: December 02, 2020 Williams v. Mercy Housing
440(Civil Rights: Other) | Illinois Northern
Judgment In A Civil Case
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE. Emailed notice(cdh, ) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
-
Filed: December 02, 2020 | Entered: December 02, 2020 Williams v. Mercy Housing
440(Civil Rights: Other) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: On November 18, 2020, Magistrate Judge Finnegan entered an order 104 in which she (a) noted that the sole remaining Defendant had orally moved to voluntarily dismiss its counterclaim and (b) recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff's lawsuit based on her failure to participate in scheduled status hearings and the discovery process. Judge Finnegan noted that since this Court's referral for discovery supervision, Plaintiff has missed two status hearings as well as the deadline for making her initial disclosures under FRCP 26(a)(1). Judge Finnegan warned Plaintiff in October [see 103] that a recommendation of dismissal would be forthcoming for failure to properly prosecute this case. Judge Finnegan's November 18 order also mentions a new federal lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendant in Colorado. Plaintiff has filed a motion 105 seeking a new status hearing date "due to confusion of court dates." But Plaintiff's explanation makes no sense, as there was no change of the date or the time for the status hearing on November 18. The October 7 order 103 states that the hearing would be held on "11/18/2020 at 11am" and the undersigned has confirmed with Magistrate Judge Finnegan that the hearing was indeed commenced at that time and on that date, not on November 10 as Plaintiff claims in her motion. Because Plaintiff's explanation is unsatisfactory and, indeed, nonsensical the Court will grant Defendant's oral motion to dismiss its counterclaim and accept Judge Finnegan's recommendation that Plaintiff's case be dismissed for her repeated failure to appear for status hearings and the discovery process. Plaintiff's motion for a new status hearing 105 therefore is denied. A final judgment under FRCP 58 will be entered as a separate document. Civil case terminated. Emailed notice (cdh, ) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
Stay ahead of the curve
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.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login