Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MOORE v. CITY OF CHICAGO

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


March 16, 2004.

DARLENE MOORE, Plaintiff;
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff wants to file a third amended complaint, bringing the City back in. The City opposes, convinced that its earlier dismissal was supposed to be with prejudice. Both plaintiff and the City have, with admirable candor, traced the somewhat convoluted procedural history leading up to the dismissal and its aftermath.

We question, however, whether the City can now be sued on federal claims. The events giving rise to the claims occurred on September 11, 2001, well over two years ago. A Rule 41(a) dismissal followed by a refiling must satisfy the statute of limitations, Adams v. Lever Bros. Co., 874 F.2d 393, 395 (7th Cir. 1989), and this does not Thus, on the federal claims, it is as if the City had never been named as a party and now, after the statute has run, plaintiff seeks to add it as a party.

  Plaintiff also seeks to file two state law claims against the City, one on the basis of respondent superior and the other indemnification. They are unnecessary, as the City does not dispute that the individual officers were acting within the scope of their employment and are entitled to indemnification. They also appear to be too late (except, possibly, indemnification, Page 2 as the obligation does not specifically arise until there is a judgment against the police officers). State law, 735 ILCS 5/L3-217, extends the time for refiling In some instances, but none Is applicable here. "No action which is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff . . . may be filed where the time for commencing the action has expired."

  The motion for leave to file is denied. And if we are wrong about this, plaintiff can file a motion for reconsideration. Page 1

20040316

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.