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.

Singh v. Pella Corporation

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

February 6, 2014

GURVINDER PAL SINGH, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
PELLA CORPORATION, an Iowa corporation, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

On December 19, 2013 this Court ruled orally on the pending motion by defendant Pella Corporation either to dismiss the Complaint or, alternatively, to obtain a more definite statement. Although the latter alternative was rejected by this Court, the motion to dismiss was entered and continued - but with plaintiff's counsel ordered to file a self-contained Amended Complaint on or before January 31, 2014.

Even though that Amended Complaint was timely filed on January 31, plaintiff's counsel has ignored the explicit directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the delivery of a paper copy of that document for the assigned judge's use within one business day after filing.[1] To underscore the importance of that requirement to the case management procedures followed by this Court, the first paragraph in its website repeats the requirement, adding that a delivery to this Court's chambers on the date of filing, if possible, would be appreciated (although such earlier delivery is not essential).

Despite the literal one-business-day requirement of LR 5.2(f), this Court has customarily allowed a grace period - at least a few working days, sometimes a bit longer - before the issuance of this type of memorandum order. In this instance that added time has elapsed without compliance by plaintiff's counsel, and this Court hereby orders:

1. that the missing copy of the Amended Complaint be delivered to this Court's chambers forthwith and
2. that such delivery be accompanied by a check for $100 payable to the "Clerk of the District Court" by reason of the LR 5.2(f) violation, a requirement foreshadowed by the opening provision in this Court's website.

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.