Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Elmore v. City of Chicago

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

January 11, 2017

CITY OF CHICAGO, BOARD OF EDUCATION, a municipal corporation, and body politic, et al., Defendants.

         Against Defendants Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 55(a)(b)(2), NDIL Local Rule 83.15, With Supporting Legal Documents


          Sara L. Ellis Judge

         COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Annette Elmore hereafter, ("Plaintiff) against the City of Chicago, Board of Education, et al., a municipal corporation, a body politic, hereafter, ("Board") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), in her "Re-Noticed Motion, " asking that this Court grant Plaintiff her default judgment against defendants Board for having failed to appear and otherwise plead against Plaintiffs Title VII 1964 "Prima Facie" and AEDA Complaint for race and age discrimination in the workplace properly re-filed in the U.S. District Court Central Division on January 5, 2015 before U.S. District Court Judge Michael M. Mihm under Civil Action 1:15-CV-1005. See U.S.C.A. §1390(a) 1406(b). The Service of Process Board-Summons and Complaint was hand-delivered by Plaintiffs non-party server on June 1, 2015. [1] (Civil Action 1005 Entry Doc. #5) See Exhibit A filed. The Defendants had twenty-one days (21) or until June 22, 2015 to appear and plead against Plaintiffs Complaint-to date, Defendants have never appeared in this lawsuit, nor have they plead against Plaintiffs Complaint. (Civil Action 1005 Doc. Entry #5 June 10, 2015). See Exhibit B filed.

         PURSUANT TO ILND LR 83.15


         'PRIOR' TO DECEMBER 13. 2016

         This Court needs to acknowledge that it did not have any "jurisdiction" over the Plaintiff nor the Defendant in this Case until December 13, 2016. Plaintiff factually states the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 83.15 requires both parties to file an 'appearance' before they can be heard before any judge in the ILND Court. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant completed, or officially filed appearance forms pursuant to LR 83.15 therefore, this Court was "Improper" to send any communications ("Minute Entries") to the Plaintiff regarding its alleged "jurisdiction" over her citing Rule 4(m) on May 28, 2015.


         "Unless the parties officially completed appearance forms pursuant to LR 81.15 to be heard before this litigation at issue, this Court was in violation of LR 83.15 to send Plaintiff any Minute entries providing any sort of instruction to Plaintiff regarding Process Service to Defendant. This Court took a illegal liberty when it sent Plaintiff a 'minute entry' ordering her to effect, "Service of Process" upon the Defendants-This Court 'pre' December 13, 2016 according to the ILND Local Rule 83.15 could not and should not have made any attempt to, "Prevent Plaintiff from entering a default judgment against the Defendants, " by attempting to send Plaintiff a "Minute Entry" ordering Plaintiff to serve anything to the Defendants.

         Plaintiff factually contends that this Court is fully aware that it had no jurisdiction over the Parties from January 5, 2015 to December 12, 2016 in that there has never been any "final order, " by this Court "Pre" December 13, 2016. Additionally, this Court "Notification of Dockel Entry, " is made by Ms. Rhonda Johnson, this Court's Deputy Clerk; " Plaintiff failed to effectuate service for the reasons stated in the Court's prior order of [Doc. #9 6/23/2015). " See Exhibit #2.


         It is clear to the Plaintiff that this Court has engaged in an illicit procedure by attempting to provide an "Minute Entry" text on a case this Court had absolutely no jurisdiction over-it had no jurisdiction over either Party: On May 28, 2015 See (ECF No. 5-1:15-CV-00224) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the time to serve Defendants expired on May 5, 2015. Plaintiff has not filed proof of service to demonstrate that Defendants were served by this date. The Court gives Plaintiff until June 4, 2015 to file such proof of service. If Plaintiff does not file proof of service by June 4, 2015, the case will be dismissed without prejudice to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Mailed Notice (rj\) (Entered: 05/28/2015.") See Exhibit #3. Plaintiff states to this Court, "a proof of service, " is the "Affidavit attesting that proof of Service -it is the Summons along with the Complaint of the Plaintiff. Plaintiffs Summons and Complaint were served upon Defendants on June 1, 2015. Plaintiffs filings of that proof were submitted to this Court on December 13, 2016-also filed with the Clerk for the ILND, Thomas Bruton.

         This Court could not 'order' nor should this Court have entered and directed any minute entry toward Plaintiff to do anything toward the Defendants -this Court's alleged Minute Entry is in violation of ILND Local Rule 83.15. This Court needs to note that even though it had no jurisdiction over the Plaintiff or Defendants-Plaintiff had Defendants served June 1, 2015 and Proof of Service (Affidavit) went to the ILCD via email (new case initiation) on June 3, 2015 (thus satisfying FRCP 4(m). This Court's behavior is an attempt to take advantage of the Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, and to assist Defendants who Plaintiff has proven in her prior lawsuit (1:12-CV-07531) that Court is a former Lawyer for the City of Chicago Department of Law along with Patricia J. Kendall- City of Chicago, Board of Education Counsel of Record, whom Plaintiff reminds this Court did not withdraw from this litigation in violation of the Federal Rule; of Civil Procedure.

         For reasons outlined in Local Rule 83.15 the ILND forbids any Judge in its Court to attempt to preside over any lawsuit in which the Parties have not made official appearances pursuant to its Local Rule. If this Court had such jurisdiction over the Plaintiff and Defendants in this Federal litigation, "why did this Court not supply a written signed order "BEFORE" December 13, 2016?" There was never any signed Order on the Civil Docket and Plaintiff nor did Defendants receive such a signed order reflecting such an order of "dismissal" by this Court. This Court certainly cannot make a [p]ost attempt to do so."

         Plaintiff further propounds: "Even though She knows this Court had absolutely no jurisdiction over either party before December 13, 2016, Plaintiff in order to take any argument from the Defendants had Defendants served on June 1, 2015 with the U.S. Central Division's Federal Summons and Plaintiffs Complaint; She also filed the Proof of service filed on June 3, 2015 via email to the Clerk of the Central Division, Kenneth Wells -who has acknowledge receiving Plaintiffs email that contained Plaintiffs Proof of Service Affidavit on Civil Action 1:15-CV-1005. According to case law authorities, Defendants are officially responsible to answer a summons and ...

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.