The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES NORGLE, District Judge
*fn1 Plaintiff Tartt improperly names Defendant Northwest Community
Hospital as Northwest Community Healthcare.
Plaintiff Derrick Tartt ("Tartt"), a licensed anesthesiologist,
has filed his second Amended Complaint against Defendants
Northwest Community Hospital ("NCH") and Northwest Suburban
Anesthesiologists ("NSA"). Tartt alleges employment
discrimination in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA"), and Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII").
Presently before the court are a total of five motions. The
following motions are granted: NCH's Motion to Strike [97-1],
NCH's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [91-1], and NSA's
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [90-1]. The following motions
are denied: NCH's Rule 11 Motion for Sanctions [90-2], and
Tartt's Motion for Leave of the Court to File The Plaintiff's
Answers to the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Our Amended
Complaint, Instanter [92-1].
In order to properly understand the motions before the court,
the court undertakes a brief analysis of the protracted history
of Tartt's litigation against the Defendants. In July 1993,
Plaintiff Tartt, African American, signed an employment contract
with NSA. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def. NCH's Mot. to Dismiss Am.
Compl., 1, Ex. A. NSA provided anesthesiology services to NCH.
Tartt worked for NSA, at NCH, as an anesthesiologist until July
1994. At that time, Tartt took a leave of absence in order to
join the United States military.*fn2 Tartt was honorably
discharged from the military, and returned to NSA and NCH in
NSA asserts that while Tartt was in the military, he practiced
anesthesiology at NCH (in violation of his employment agreement),
and misappropriated the proceeds he received for those services.
As a condition of his continued employment with NSA, Tartt signed
a revised employment contract in April 1997. Id., Ex. B. In
that revised contract, Tartt acknowledged that he had violated
provisions of the initial employment contract during his leave of
absence, and agreed to repay the $18,250 he had misappropriated
from NSA during that time. Id., Ex. B, 1-2. Tartt worked for
NSA, at NCH, until NSA terminated Tartt's employment in November
2000. On December 20, 2000, Tartt filed a pro se complaint (case
number 00-C-7960) against NSA and NCH, seeking relief under
USERRA*fn3 and Title VII. On that same date, Tartt filed a
nearly identical pro se complaint (case number 00-C-7959)
against NSA alone. The essence of Tartt's complaints is that,
following Tartt's return from military service, the revised
employment agreement Tartt signed with NSA unlawfully denied
Tartt employment benefits that he would have obtained but for his
race and his military service. For purposes of clarity, the court
will refer to the instant case, case number 00-C-7960, as "7960,"
and Tartt's second case, case number 00-C-7959, as "7959."
The court dismissed 7960 in March 2001, noting that Tartt could
not proceed on his Title VII claim, as he had failed to first
file a discrimination charge with the EEOC, nor could he proceed
on his USERRA claim, as it was "rambling, confusing, not concise,
not short and plain." See Minute Order of Mar. 1, 2001. The
court, however, granted Tartt leave to file an Amended Complaint.
Id. Tartt then filed, pro se, Amended Complaints in both 7959
and 7960. The first Amended Complaint in 7960, filed March 23,
2001, again alleged employment discrimination based on Tartt's
race and military service. This Complaint was thirty-four pages
long, failed to include numbers for all paragraphs, and contained
a rambling nineteen page section styled "Federal Question
Jurisdiction." Both Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss,
asserting that Tartt's claims must fail, as Tartt was never
employed by the NCH, stated no cognizable claim under USERRA, and
failed to file a EEOC complaint. The court denied these motions,
but, sua sponte, noted that cases 7959 and 7960 appeared to be nearly
identical, and issued a rule to show cause as to why one of them
should not be dismissed. Tartt, by now represented by counsel,
failed to respond to the court's rule. The court therefore
dismissed 7960. See Minute Order of May 30, 2002.
Tartt then filed a Motion to Reconsider the court's dismissal
of 7960, which the court denied. On appeal, however, the Seventh
Circuit reversed and remanded. Tartt v. Northwest Comty. Hosp.,
No. 03-1558, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21917 (7th Cir. Oct. 21, 2003).
The court then granted Tartt leave to file a second Amended
Tartt then filed the second Amended Complaint, in case
00-C-7960, on April 23, 2004. In this Complaint, filed against
Defendants NSA and NCH, Tartt once again asserts violations of
USERRA and Title VII. See Tartt's second Amended Complaint of
April 23, 2004. Tartt once again asserts that NSA and NCH
discriminated against him on the basis of his military service
and race, and alleges that this discrimination adversely impacted
his right to retirement benefits, stock ownership, promotions,
increases in salary, and training. Id. at ¶ 27-28. In response,
Defendants assert that these claims are barred by the principle
of res judicata, and that Tartt has failed to state a claim
under which relief can be granted.
Following Tartt's second Amended Complaint, the parties filed a
total of five motions: 1) on May 27, 2004, Defendant NCH filed a
Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) [91-1]; 2) on May 27, 2004,
Defendant NSA filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)
[90-1]; 3) on May 27, 2004, Defendant NSA filed a Motion for Sanctions under Rule
11 against Tartt and Tartt's counsel [90-2]; 4) on June 10, 2004,
Tartt filed a Motion for Leave of the Court to File the
Plaintiff's Answer to the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Our
Amended Complaint, Instanter [92-1]; and 5) on August 6, 2004,
NCH filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff Tartt's Answer to
Defendant Northwest Community Healthcare ...