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,
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.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...