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.

Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office

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

December 18, 2014

IVAN HERNANDEZ, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ, BILL JONES, GENE MICHNO, MARVIN BAILEY AND RICHARD DAVIS, Plaintiffs,
v.
COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, MICHAEL F. SHEAHAN, in his official capacity, CAROL KAUFMAN, as representative of the estate of TIMOTHY KAUFMANN, in his individual capacity, SCOTT KURTOVICH, in his individual capacity, DENNIS ANDREWS, in his individual capacity, THOMAS SNOOKS, in his individual capacity, the COUNTY OF COOK, Defendants

Page 740

For Ivan Hernandez, Roberto Rodriguez, Bill Jones, Gene Michno, Marvin Bailey, Richard Davis, Plaintiffs: Dana L. Kurtz, LEAD ATTORNEY, Heidi Karr Sleper, Kurtz Law Offices, Ltd., Hinsdale, IL.

For Cook County Sheriff's Office, Defendant: Daniel Francis Gallagher, LEAD ATTORNEY, Christopher Paul Keleher, Lawrence S. Kowalczyk, Paul A OGrady, Terrence Franklin Guolee, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., Chicago, IL; Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Chicago, IL; Mary Elizabeth McClellan, Cook County States Attorney, Chicago, IL.

For Michael F Sheahan, in his individual capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, Carol Kaufmann, representative of the estate of defendant Timothy Kaufmann, deceased, Scott Kurtovich, in his individual capacity, Dennis Andrews, in his individual capacity, Thomas Snooks, in his individual capacity, Defendants: Daniel Francis Gallagher, LEAD ATTORNEY, Christopher Paul Keleher, Lawrence S. Kowalczyk, Terrence Franklin Guolee, Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., Chicago, IL; Dominick L Lanzito, Peterson Johnson & Murray - Chicago LLC, Chicago, IL; Mary Elizabeth McClellan, Cook County States Attorney, Chicago, IL.

For County Of Cook, a unit of local Government, Defendant: Francis J. Catania, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cook County State's Attorney, Chicago, IL; Mary Elizabeth McClellan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cook County States Attorney, Chicago, IL; Michael David Jacobs, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cook County States Attorney's Office Daley Ctr., Chicago, IL; James Charles Pullos, Cook County State's Attorney's Office, Chicago, IL.

Page 741

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin, United States District Judge.

Six correctional officers with the Cook County Sheriff's Office, Department of Corrections who worked at the Cook County Jail (namely, Ivan Hernandez, Roberto Rodriguez, Bill Jones, Gene Michno, Marvin Bailey, and Richard Davis (collectively " Plaintiffs" )), allege that the Cook County Sheriff's Office, former Cook County Sheriff Michael Sheahan, and certain officials in his office (namely, Timothy Kaufmann, Scott Kurtovich, Dennis Andrews, and Thomas Snooks) (collectively, " Defendants" ), violated the First Amendment and state law by conspiring to discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiffs for their support of a certain candidate in the election for sheriff by investigating and disciplining Plaintiffs in connection with an escape from the Cook County Jail. R. 55. Counts I, II, IV, and VI of the complaint have been dismissed at various points in time during the course of the litigation. See R. 226; R. 369 ( Hernandez v. Sheahan, 711 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2013)); R. 395.

Page 742

More recently, on July 31, 2014, the Court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims in the case, i.e., Plaintiffs' Monell claim against the Sheriff's Office for political retaliation in violation of the First Amendment (Count III), and Plaintiffs' claim against the individual defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of Illinois law (Count V). See R. 445 ( Hernandez v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 2014 WL 3805734 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2014)). Defendants have now moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss Count V (the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress), arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because Plaintiffs failed to administratively exhaust the claim pursuant to the Illinois Human Rights Act (" IHRA" ). R. 452. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes the Court to dismiss any claim over which the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction " at any time." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Although Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution defines the outer bounds of a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction, generally, the original jurisdiction of federal courts in a non-criminal case arises from a federal question or diversity among the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § § 1331, 1332. A federal court's original jurisdiction may be supplemented to include state law claims that " form part of the same case or controversy." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). However, a federal court's ability to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim is subject to any provision in the state law limiting subject matter jurisdiction. See Bell v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 2005 WL 43178, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2005) (holding that the IHRA, which provides that " 'no court shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in this Act' . . . divests courts, both state and federal, of jurisdiction to hear state law claims of civil rights violations unless those claims are brought under the IHRA." ); Guy v. State of Illinois, 958 F.Supp. 1300, 1312 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (" Illinois state courts (and federal courts sitting in their stead) lack jurisdiction over [IHRA] claims, which proceed instead in front of the Illinois Human Rights Commission." ).

" The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating its existence." Farnik v. F.D.I.C., 707 F.3d 717, 721 (7th Cir. 2013). When " considering a motion that launches a factual attack against jurisdiction, the district court may properly look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists." Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440, 444 (7th Cir. 2009). On this motion, which comes after the Court has already denied summary judgment ...


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.