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.

Noel Padilla, et al v. City of Chicago

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


December 20, 2010

NOEL PADILLA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

MEMORANDUM

This Court seeks to keep current in dealing with pending matters in cases on its calendar*fn1 by obtaining regular (every week to ten days) computer-generated printouts of pending motions. For some time the only motions listed for this case have been those pending before Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys in connection with his monitoring of discovery (currently Dkt. Nos. 366 and 368). But at the last status hearing counsel for the parties advised that an unlisted motion, described as comprising Dkt. Nos. 298 and 310, calls for resolution by this Court.

It is difficult to understand such an omission. In the past this Court has occasionally found motions still listed on the printouts even though it had already ruled on them -- perhaps the understandable product of the Clerk's Office not recognizing the thrust of a memorandum order or memorandum opinion and order issued by this Court. But this instance, which involves an assertedly still extant motion on which this Court has not ruled, is unique in this Court's experience.

Further inquiry may, however, have cleared up the mystery. It appears that defendants and some intervenors took a premature appeal on the subject to our Court of Appeals last year -- an appeal that remained pending until the Court of Appeals dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction this past August. In the meantime, this Court does not have copies (1) of the very lengthy Dkt. No. 298 (which had been filed by the appellants in this District Court) or (2) of Dkt. No. 299 (the under-seal documents that had been tendered for in camera review in conjunction with Dkt. No. 298) or (3) of the extremely lengthy Dkt. No. 310 (the response to Dkt. No. 298). Accordingly this Court's docket clerk has called counsel for the parties to provide those documents to this Court so that it may address the matter.


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.