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.

Puglisi v. Centerpoint Properties

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


July 17, 2007

CATHERINE PUGLISI, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CENTERPOINT PROPERTIES, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM

Counsel for the parties--plaintiff Catherine Puglisi and defendant Centerpoint Properties--have executed and filed a document captioned "Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice of Counts III and IV of Plaintiff's Complaint." This memorandum is issued sua sponte because of the need to clarify, in one respect, precisely what is sought to be accomplished by that filing.

In that respect, this Court has had occasion to comment from time to time in cases on its calendar that the use of "counts" to designate separate theories of recovery, rather than different claims (which represent the operative concept in federal litigation), reflects a misunderstanding of Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b), perhaps occasioned by the difference between federal and state practice in that respect. That usage is present in the pleadings here, and it is coupled with still another borrowing from state practice because the current Stipulation of Dismissal refers to "causes of action" (in that regard see, e.g., NAACP v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 978 F.2d 287, 291-93 (7th Cir. 1992)).

It would seem clear from the Stipulation that the agreed-upon dismissal would call for the striking of Complaint ¶¶48-51 (the paragraphs that are listed under the caption "Count III, Age Discrimination in Violation of ADEA") and Complaint ¶¶52-56 (the paragraphs that are listed under the caption "Count IV, Violation of the FMLA"). What is unclear, however, is whether the Complaint's earlier allegations as to conduct that might fall under the same rubrics (see, e.g., Complaint ¶¶24, 25 and 27) do or do not remain in the case, perhaps as claimed evidence to support the remaining allegations of actionable discriminatory or retaliatory conduct. This Court will await input from the parties' counsel in that respect, perhaps in the currently scheduled summary judgment submissions.

20070717

© 1992-2007 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.