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.

Bisharat v. Village of Niles

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


April 20, 2010

ISSA BISHARAT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VILLAGE OF NILES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In response to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") brought by Issa Bisharat ("Bisharat") against private individuals Nenous Esha ("Esha") and Sargon Hinawer ("Hinawer") and a coterie of other defendants (collectively "Niles Defendants")--the Village of Niles, its Police Department, its Chief of Police and seven police officers--the Niles Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss FAC Counts VII through XIV*fn1 together with a supporting Memorandum. This memorandum opinion and order is issued to focus Bisharat's counsel on the issues as this Court perceives them, so that the matter may be discussed on a better informed basis at the next scheduled status hearing on May 3.

Niles Defendants Mem. 7-9, which challenges the sufficiency of FAC Counts VII and VIII under 42 U.S.C. §1983 ("Section 1983"), conspicuously fails to refer to Officer Anthony Muscolino ("Muscolino"), who is the only Niles officer alleged to have acted in league with claimed wrongdoers Esha and Hinawer (see FAC ¶¶19-32). Although the memorandum is less than forthright in not even speaking about Muscolino and discussing those Counts (Muscolino is first referred to in the pages beginning at Mem. 15, which pages address Counts XI and XII), Niles Defendants appear to be right in challenging Bisharat's assertion of a wide-ranging conspiracy. Indeed, that would seem to be so even under the more generous pleading standards that prevailed before the Supreme Court's recent Twombly-Iqbal pronouncements.

That being so, it is unclear just what federally-based claims can survive here.*fn2 And that in turn poses the question whether Bisharat's invocation of 28 U.S.C. §1367 in an effort to advance his numerous state law claims is essentially the legal equivalent of having a very large tail wag a very small dog. Both Bisharat's counsel and defense counsel should come to the May 3 status hearing fully prepared to discuss the matters set out in this brief opinion.


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.