UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION
May 31, 2006
DENNY PATRIDGE AND JUDY PATRIDGE, PLAINTIFFS,
J.K. HARRIS COMPANY, BOBBIE MICKEY, AND LARRY PHILLIPS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge
Currently pending before this court is the United States' Amended Motion to Intervene (#34) and the United States' Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication. For the reasons that follow, the Motion to Intervene (#34) is GRANTED and the Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication (#36) is DENIED.
AMENDED MOTION TO INTERVENE
On May 11, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (#42) in the above cause. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the United States' Amended Motion to Intervene (#34) be GRANTED.
On May 25, 2006, Plaintiffs filed their Objection to the Report and Recommendation (#44) and the United States has filed a Response (#45). This court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's reasoning, the Plaintiffs' Objection, and the United States' Response. After a thorough and careful de novo review, this court agrees with and accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the United States' Amended Motion to Intervene (#34) is GRANTED.
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
On April 21, 2006, the United States filed a Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication, seeking a preliminary ruling from this court that Defendant Larry Phillips is entitled to absolute immunity with regard to his testimony in the criminal prosecution of Plaintiff Denny Patridge. In its motion, the United States indicates it filed this motion as a pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c) which requires that a motion to intervene "shall be accompanied by a pleading setting forth the claim or defense for which intervention is sought." The United States correctly notes that a ruling on this issue would not dispose of any counts in this matter. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue Defendant Phillips is not entitled immunity by virtue of the fact he was a complaining witness. After reviewing the pleadings, the court finds it would be more prudent to decide this issue in the context of a dispositive motion which Defendant Phillips has had the opportunity to brief along with the United States. Thus, while this court finds the motion is sufficient to meet the requirement of Rule 24(c) and without ruling on the merits, the United States' Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication is denied at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1) The United States' Amended Motion to Intervene (#34) is GRANTED.
(2) The United States' Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication (#36) is DENIED at this time.
ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2006
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.