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.

Fisher v. Board of Education of Prairie-Hills Elementary School District 144

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

October 4, 2019

MICHELE FISHER, Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE PRAIRIE-HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 144, et al., Defendant.

          Kerri L. Feczko One of the Attorneys for Defendants

          DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge

         NOW 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:

         1. On 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).

         2. On 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).

         3. Plaintiff did not file a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on July 12, 2019 in violation of the Court's Order.

         4. 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.

         5. 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).

         6. On 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).

         7. On 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).

         8. Just 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).

         9. On 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 included:

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 ...

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.