United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
October 3, 2005.
GORDON MAAG, Plaintiff,
CHICAGOLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, a not-for-profit corporation, et al. Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID HERNDON, District Judge
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.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.