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.

McCallum v. Bank One

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


November 6, 2007

STEPHANIE P. MCCALLUM AND MCCALLUM TRUST, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BANK ONE, DEFENDANT.

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

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Nearly a month after the issuance of this Court's October 4, 2007 memorandum order dismissing this action on both subject matter jurisdictional and claim preclusion principles, Stephanie McCallum ("McCallum") has filed a document that she captions both "Notice of Motion" and "Answer to Memorandum Order." But that filing is devoted primarily to airing McCallum's grievances against Bank One and does not at all address the underpinnings of the order of dismissal. Indeed, McCallum reflects a total misunderstanding of the jurisdictional defects in her action when she states mistakenly (copied verbatim):

Honorable Shadur noted that the case has merits on diversity of the Plaintiff, Dr. McCallum. Judge Shadur argues however that the situs for the Bank One Defendant is not in Chicago thereby baring McCallum from any further litigation.

McCallum's lack of attention to, and her lack of understanding of, the limitations on federal jurisdiction are doubly puzzling in light of her later statement that she "returned to attend Law School in Illinois in 2006." It would seem that one of the earliest focuses of any law school curriculum would most likely be the addressing of such jurisdictional issues.

Although as noted earlier McCallum has labeled her filing in part as "Notice of Motion," she has not complied with this District Court's local rules as to the presentment of motions. This Court will nonetheless take McCallum at her word but, having done so, it is compelled to deny whatever motion she is seeking to assert.

20071106

© 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.