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.

Collins v. State

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION


October 27, 2006

MARGARET J. COLLINS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF ILLINOIS; ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE AND STATE LIBRARIAN, JESSE WHITE; ILLINOIS STATE LIBRARY; JEAN WILKINS,DIRECTOR OF ILLINOIS STATE LIBRARY, INDIVIDUALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY; KATHLEEN BLOOMBERG, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF ILLINOIS STATE LIBRARY, INDIVIDUALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY; ILLINOIS FEDERATION OF TEACHERS; JEAN REEDER; AND GARY LEACH, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge

OPINION

This case is before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion to update the Court on perfecting service to Defendant Illinois Federation of Teachers [d/e 131] and the Plaintiff's motion to strike that Defendant's answer to the amended complaint [d/e 132].

In her motion to update the Court on perfecting service, the Plaintiff states that she sent via Federal Express a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons for the Illinois Federation of Teachers ("IFT") to a representative of that Defendant. The Plaintiff claims she has not received a response. Because the Plaintiff is not requesting any relief, this filing is technically not a motion. As IFT states, moreover, there was no need to re-serve that Defendant and request a waiver of summons, because it has been a part of this litigation for years.

In her revised motion to strike IFT's answer to the amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that attorney Mary Lee Leahy has filed an answer on behalf of IFT without giving notice of representation of that party. As IFT notes in its response, however, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 does not require the filing of such a notice. By filing the answer, counsel was notifying the Court and the Plaintiff that she is representing IFT. Moreover, Ms. Leahy has been representing IFT for years in this case.

Ergo, the Plaintiff's motion to update the Court on perfecting service [d/e 131] is DENIED AS MOOT. The Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendant's answer to her amended complaint [d/e 132] is DENIED.

Richard Mills United States District Judge

20061027

© 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.