United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
L. Feczko One of the Attorneys for Defendants
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SUMMARY
Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge
COME Defendants, Board of Education of the Prairie-Hills
Elementary School District 144, Barbara Nettles, Joyce
Dickerson, Sharon Davis, Juanita Jordan, Elaine Walker, Kathy
Taylor, Natalie Myers, and Dr. Kimako Patterson, (hereinafter
the “District” or “Defendants”), by
and through their attorneys Frank B. Garrett III and Kerri L.
Feczko of Robbins Schwartz Nicholas Lifton & Taylor,
Ltd., and as their Motion For Entry of Summary Judgment,
state as follows:
April 30, 2019, the Court issued a briefing schedule wherein
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was due on or by
June 14, 2019, Plaintiff's Response was due on or by July
12, 2019, and Defendants' Reply was due on or by July 26,
2019. (ECF No. 56).
June 14, 2019, Defendants complied with the Court's Order
and timely filed its Motion for Summary Judgment,
accompanying Memorandum, and Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts.
(ECF Nos. 61-63).
Plaintiff did not file a Response to Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment on July 12, 2019 in violation of the
Furthermore, Plaintiff did not file a Motion for an extension
to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on
or before the Court's deadline of July 12, 2019.
Instead, on July 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a retroactive
Motion for an Extension to Respond to Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment and noticed it for presentment two weeks
later. (ECF Nos. 68-69).
July 23, 2019, Defendants filed objections to Plaintiff's
retroactive Motion for an Extension of Time to respond to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and requested
that the Court deny said motion due to Plaintiff's
failure to demonstrate “excusable neglect” as
required by Federal Rule of Procedure 6(b). (ECF No. 70).
August 1, 2019, the Court rescheduled the hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension to Respond to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to August 8,
2019. (ECF No. 71).
before midnight on August 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed her
Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
without prior approval or leave from the Court. (ECF No. 72).
August 7, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment for untimeliness and numerous procedural
deficiencies. (ECF No. 73). These procedural deficiencies
a. Exceeding the page limit set out in Local Rule 7.1 without
the approval or leave from the Court to do so;
b. Filing a “Statement of Additional Disputed or
Undisputed Material Facts” comprised of eighty-three
(83) Statements of Facts - well in excess of the maximum
forty (40) Statements of Additional Facts permitted by Local
Rule 56.1(b)(3) - without ...