Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Angiulo v. the United States of America

May 16, 2011

ANGIULO
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court denies Plaintiff's reconsideration motion [25]. The Court also strikes Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust -- which is part of his motion for reconsideration -- as non-responsive. Plaintiff must file his response brief addressing Defendant's arguments by no later than 5/23/11. Defendants' reply is due on or before 6/6/11.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiff Frank Anguilo's motion for reconsideration regarding the Court's April 19, 2011 minute order granting Defendant's motion to vacate the order permitting further discovery and denying Plaintiff's motion for remand. For the following reasons, the Court, in its discretion, denies Plaintiff's reconsideration motion. The Court also strikes Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust -- which is part of his motion for reconsideration -- as non-responsive. Plaintiff must file his response brief addressing Defendant's arguments by no later than May 23, 2011. Defendants' reply is due on or before June 6, 2011.

BACKGROUND

On March 5, 2011, Angiulo filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois bringing claims sounding in tort -- defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress -- against his supervisor at the Internal Revenue Service, Sonja Ra'Vonn Hall. On March 14, 2011, the United States removed Angiulo's Complaint from the Circuit Court of Cook County. The notice of removal was filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2) upon certificate by the Attorney General of the United States that Hall was acting within the scope of her employment as a federal government employee at the time of the incidents out of which Angiulo's claims arose. Also pursuant to Section 2679(d)(1), the United States was substituted as the sole federal defendant in lieu of Hall.

Courtroom Deputy KF

Initials:

On March 24, 2011, the Court held a motion hearing and entered the United States' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court also set a deadline for Angiulo's motion to remand. On March 30, 2011, Angiulo filed a motion for an extension of time and leave to conduct discovery. In his motion, Anguilo stated the following:

To appropriately, reasonably and responsibly ensure the development of a sufficiently thorough and complete factual basis necessary for adequate preparation of a Motion for Remand; Plaintiff's counsel respectful moves this Honorable Court for leave to conduct special and limited discovery of the factual predicate, principles applied and protocol which led to the certification executed on March 11, 2011 by the Chief Civil Division, US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois attesting to the conclusion that the actions of Sonja Ra'Vonn Hall addressed in the complaint and specifically the filing of a false report to the Agency Inspector General, fell within the scope of her employment as an employee of the United States of America.

(R. 12-1, 3/30/11 Motion, at 2.) No where in his motion does Anguilo mention that he was also seeking discovery to reverse the substitution of the United States as Defendant. Also, at the motion hearing, Anguilo's counsel made no such request.

The Court granted Plaintiff's motion and granted leave to take discovery on April 5, 2011. The Court further directed the parties to meet and confer regarding this limited discovery on or before April 8, 2011 and to file a proposed discovery plan on April 11, 2011. Instead of filing a joint proposed discovery plan, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.