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.

Gill v. Village of Melrose Park

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

March 27, 2014

TANYA GILL, Plaintiff,
v.
VILLAGE OF MELROSE PARK, et al., Defendants

Page 957

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 958

For Tanya Gill, Plaintiff: David M. Hundley, LEAD ATTORNEY, Hundley Law Group, Chicago, IL.

For Village of Melrose Park, a Municipal Corporation, Other Unknown Melrose Park Police Officers, Officer Natale, Melrose Park Police, Officer Gibson, Melrose Park Police, Officer Migliore, Officer Bartemio, Melrose Park Police, Officer Recinos, Melrose Park Police (Badge No. 47), Defendants: Michael D. Bersani, LEAD ATTORNEY, Anthony George Becknek, Zrinka R. Davis, Hervas, Condon & Bersani, P.C., Itasca, IL.

Page 959

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John J. Tharp, Jr., United States District Judge.

The plaintiff, Tanya Gill, filed this civil rights lawsuit against Melrose Park police officers Vito Migliore, Mike Recinos,

Page 960

Leonard Bartemio, Adam Gibson, Dennis Natale, and the Village of Melrose Park (the " Village" ), alleging claims of excessive force and false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state-law claims of battery and false arrest and imprisonment against Officer Migliore and the Village (under the respondeat superior theory).[1] Gill alleges that the officers who responded to a reported battery against Gill at a bar in Melrose Park unreasonably seized her and used excessive force after she made incidental physical contact with Officer Migliore when describing the alleged battery. The defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that, as a matter of law, the seizure and the amount of force used were reasonable. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Local Rule Non-Compliance

The Court's summary of undisputed facts is taken from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements to the extent they comply with the rule and are material to the motion. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statement, however, is littered with new facts, legal arguments, and attempts to dispute facts without citations to the record.[2] Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) requires the party opposing summary judgment, when disputing a fact, to include " specific references to the affidavits, parts of the records, and other supporting materials relied upon," and a separate and additional statement for " any additional facts that require the denial of summary judgment, including references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(B), (C). Rather than submitting a statement of additional facts under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C), however, the plaintiff simply folds new facts in to her responses. These additional facts will be disregarded. See Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Servs., Inc.,368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004) (district court did not abuse its discretion to strike any additional facts not included in a separate statement of additional facts). Further, any disputed facts that do not include citations to the record, or that simply recharacterize the defendants' facts ...


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.