United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
April 26, 2011
WICKES FURNITURE CO., INC. ET AL
Name of Assigned Judge B. Kim Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Young than Assigned Judge
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Having reviewed the relevant docket entries, the court requires certain deficiencies to be corrected before moving forward with discovery. First, the clerk's office is instructed to reinstate Defendants John Disa and Ken Bretwisch as active defendants in this case as they have been properly served. Second, Plaintiff has until May 6, 2011, to either stand on the complaint filed on July 22, 2009, or file an amended complaint by May 6, 2011. Defendants Wickes Furniture Company, Inc., John Disa, Suzanne Forsyth and Ken Bretwisch must then answer the complaint (or amended complaint) or otherwise plead by May 27, 2011. Once Defendants appear and file their answers, the court will issue a schedule for completing discovery. Status hearing will be held in this case on June 1, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom 1944D.
O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
Parties have not taken substantive steps to either prosecute or to defend this action since the clerk's office opened the case on January 16, 2009, but for legitimate reasons. On February 13, 2009, the court stayed this action because Defendant Wickes Furniture Company, Inc., ("Wickes") filed for bankruptcy protection on February 3, 2008, almost a year before the initiation of this employment discrimination action. Five months later, the court lifted the stay and granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (R. 30.) As a result, Plaintiff's complaint was deemed to have been filed on July 22, 2009. The case was then dormant again while Plaintiff attempted to effectuate proper service on Wickes, John Disa, Suzanne Forsyth, Rachel Reger and Ken Bretwisch. Plaintiff effectuated proper service on Defendants Wickes, Bretwisch, Forsyth and Disa on July 28, 2009, August 20, 2009, September 1, 2009, and September 22, 2009, respectively. (R. 23, 25, 26, 39.) On September 22, 2009, Plaintiff sought to amend her complaint. The court granted Plaintiff leave to file her motion to amend her complaint but did not rule on the motion. On September 30, 2009, the clerk's office docketed Plaintiff's amended complaint as "received" and not as filed because the motion to amend remained pending. (R. 37.)
The parties then focused their efforts on trying to settle this matter. (R. 44-65.) In fact, on June 24, 2010, the parties reported to the court that they reached an agreement. (R. 65.) Based on this report, the assigned District Judge deemed Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint as moot and did not rule on the motion. (R. 66.) The parties consented to this court's jurisdiction on July 26, 2010. On July 26, 2010, the assigned District Judge entered an order dismissing those "individual defendants who have not yet been served." (R. 70.) Unfortunately, the clerk's office erroneously dismissed Defendants Disa, Rachel Reger and Bretwisch even though both Disa and Bretwisch had been properly served. The clerk's office is directed to correct this error.
Despite the report of June 24, 2010, the parties failed to reach a binding settlement. (R. 102, 103.) The parties must now turn their attention to litigating this matter. First, Plaintiff must either stand on the complaint filed on July 22, 2009, or file an amended complaint by May 6, 2011. If Plaintiff wishes to stand on the complaint filed on July 22, 2011, Plaintiff does not have to file anything by May 6, 2011. If Plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint, she is given leave to do so and file her amended complaint by May 6, 2011. Defendants Wickes, Disa, Forsyth and Bretwisch must then answer the complaint (or amended complaint) or otherwise plead by May 27, 2011.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.