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.

MAAG v. CHICAGOLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois


October 3, 2005.

GORDON MAAG, Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGOLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a not-for-profit corporation, et al. Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID HERNDON, District Judge

ORDER

The Court hereby issues this Order sua sponte in order to correct a procedural issue regarding proper designation of real parties in interest in this case and issuance of subpoenas. This matter does not reach the Court as a suit removed by a party from state court. Plaintiff originally filed his action in federal court, and has since filed his Amended Complaint (Doc. 3), alleging a jurisdictional basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, aside from the ten separate defendants against whom Plaintiff has brought this suit, Plaintiff additionally designates thirteen separate parties as "respondents in discovery," pursuant to an Illinois state civil procedure rule, 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 5/2-404.

Under the Erie doctrine, the Court will apply federal procedure and state substantive law. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 465 (1965) (citing Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)).*fn1 Therefore, the Court does not recognize these "respondents in discovery." As such, the Court refuses to issue subpoenas for Plaintiff's designated "respondents in discovery." Instead, the Court only recognizes real parties in interest, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 17. Therefore, should Plaintiff wish to subsequently add any of these parties as defendants to the suit, he should proceed to do so under the federal rules for joinder, pursuant to either FED. R. CIV. P. 19 or FED. R. CIV. P. 20.

  Accordingly, the Court STRIKES from this case the parties designated by Plaintiff as "respondents in discovery," but further allows Plaintiff to add such parties as defendants in the case, if applicable, pursuant to federal joinder rules.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20051003

© 1992-2005 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.