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.

SANDONE v. ABN AMRO BANK N.V.

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois


December 6, 2005.

RANDALL J. SANDONE, Plaintiff,
v.
ABN AMRO BANK N.V., Amsterdam, a Dutch Corporation, and ABN AMRO VENTURES B.V., Amsterdam, a Dutch Corporation, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: HAROLD BAKER, District Judge

ORDER

On December 5, 2005, Randall J. Sandone ("Sandone"), the named plaintiff in this purported class action,*fn1 filed an emergency motion for leave to withdraw as a named plaintiff, contingent upon this court's granting the motion to intervene [#37]. Sandone states that he is pursuing a related action in state court arising from the termination of his employment as President and Chief Executive Officer of Argus Systems Group. On November 17, 2005, the state court dismissed some or all of Sandone's claims because of their similarity to some of the allegations in this federal action. The judge gave Sandone twenty-eight days to withdraw as a named plaintiff in this class action and file a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the state action. Sandone has filed an emergency motion for an expedited ruling [#38].

On November 16, 2005, several individuals filed a motion to intervene as additional plaintiffs. The motion seeks to add Daniel V. Gonzales, Jay A. Kasmerchak (individually and as representative of Kasmerchak, Gonzales and Associates, LLP), Paul A. Frederick, Richard A. Rodrigues, Phillip G. Sawicki, John J. Keller, and Lon P. Frederick as named plaintiffs. Sandone supports the motion to intervene. The defendants object to the motion, arguing in part that the motion to intervene is premature. In view of Sandone's motion for leave to withdraw, the court disagrees with the defendants. The emergency motion for an expedited ruling [#38] is granted. The motion to intervene [#35] is granted, as is Sandone's motion for leave to withdraw as a named plaintiff [#37].

  Attached to the motion to intervene is a proposed third amended complaint by Sandone and the proposed additional plaintiffs. The new plaintiffs are directed to e-file, within five days of the date of this order, the third amended complaint, adding the new plaintiffs and removing Sandone as a named plaintiff. The defendants shall file an answer or other response within fourteen days thereafter. The defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint [#24] is denied as moot; Sandone's motion for leave to file a supplemental response to that motion to dismiss [#27] is also denied as moot, as are Sandone's related motion for leave to file a reply to the defendants' response to the motion for leave to file the supplemental response [#31] and motion for oral argument on the pending motions [#32].

  Sandone has also filed a motion for a scheduling order and a motion for an order for a Rule 16 conference. The court will schedule a Rule 16 conference after the defendants have filed an answer to the complaint. Therefore, the motions for a scheduling order [#28] and a motion for an order for a Rule 16 conference [#29] are denied.

  CONCLUSION

  For the foregoing reasons, the emergency motion for an expedited ruling [#38], the motion to intervene [#35] and the motion for leave to withdraw [#37] are granted. The plaintiffs shall e-file a third amended complaint within five days of the date of this order, and the defendants shall file their answer or other response within fourteen days thereafter. The defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint [#24], the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a supplemental response to that motion to dismiss [#27], the related motion for leave to file a reply [#31], and the motion for oral argument on the pending motions [#32] are denied as moot. The motion for a scheduling order [#28] and a motion for an order for a Rule 16 conference [#29] are denied. The court will schedule a Rule 16 conference after the defendants have filed an answer to the complaint.

20051206

© 1992-2006 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.