ORDER MICHAEL M. MIHM, District Judge. Now before the Court is Plaintiff Oak Leaf Outdoors, Inc.'s ("Oak Leaf") Motion to Dismiss/Strike Defendant's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Based on Court's Lack of Authority. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion [#31] is GRANTED. BACKGROUND Oak Leaf originally filed suit in the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court, Peoria County, Illinois against Defendant Double Dragon International, Inc. ("DDI"), claiming breach of express warranty, breach of...
ORDER MICHAEL M. MIHM, District Judge. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [# 8] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(c)(4) or alternatively, 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) and Defendant's Motion to Stay [# 12]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Remand [# 8] is DENIED and the Motion to Stay [# 12] is GRANTED. BACKGROUND On February 16, 2010, Plaintiffs Walter Tom, now deceased, and Linda Ellis filed a Complaint [# 1] in state court in McLean County, Illinois,...
OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge: This cause is before the Court on Defendant Karen Crump's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 16). Because this Court finds that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on the individual capacity claim and the Eleventh Amendment bars the official capacity claim, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. I. FACTS On summary judgment, this Court considers the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Valance v. Wisel, 110 F....
ORDER JOHN A. GORMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. The parties have consented to have this case heard to judgment by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and the District Judge has referred the case to me. Now before the Court are the parties' post-trial motions, as follows: Defendants Motion for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial or to amend judgment (# 238); Plaintiff's motion for permanent injunction (#240); Plaintiff's amended motion for permanent...
OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, Chief Judge. This case is before the court for ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment (# 29) filed by the Defendants, Sheriff of Kankakee County ("Sheriff"), Thomas Dorries ("Dorries"), Tina Carpintero ("Carpintero") and Amanda Voss ("Voss"). This court has carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties and the documents filed by the parties. Following this careful and thorough review, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 29) is GRANTED. FACTS 1 On...
OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 29) filed by Defendants Carol Adams, Grace Hou, Robert Kilbury, Kris Smith, Marjorie Olson, and Jane Breen. For the reasons that follow, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants Hou, Kilbury, Smith, Olson, and Breen. Summary judgment is denied as to Defendant Adams. I. FACTS In April...
ORDER & OPINION JOE BILLY McDADE, Senior District Judge. This case is before the Court pursuant to a writ of mandamus order issued July 1, 2011, from the Seventh Circuit to promptly rule on Defendant Hijazi's motions to dismiss (Docs. 15, 131, 174) the Indictment pending against him. Before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 15) and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 16), Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second Superseding Indictment (Doc. 131) and Memorandum in Support (Doc....
ORDER JOHN A. GORMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. The parties have consented to have this case heard to judgment by a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), and the District Judge has referred the case to me. Now before the court is the motion for summary judgment (# 27) by Plaintiff as to Counts I and II of the Complaint, and the cross motion for summary judgment by Richter and Carlson (# 31). The City of Rock Island has adopted (# 32) the cross motion as well as...
ORDER MICHAEL M. MIHM, District Judge. Now before the Court are Defendant Mary Davis' ("Davis") Motion for Summary Judgment [# 57] and Defendants Ken Hinton, Thomas Broderick, and Peoria School District No. 150's ("Individual Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment [# 58]. For the reasons set forth below, Davis' Motion for Summary Judgment [# 57] is GRANTED. Individual Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [# 58] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss its claims against...
ORDER & OPINION JOE BILLY McDADE, Senior District Judge. This case arises under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601-54. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. Pending before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50). For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 The Defendant, TIN Inc., is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of...
OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, Chief Judge. The Court now considers Defendant Illinois Department of Revenue's ("IDR") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (d/e 26) (the "Motion"). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED. RELEVANT FACTS Pro se Plaintiff Joan A. Williams is an African-American employee of IDR. She serves as a Revenue Tax Specialist III and has been employed by IDR since 1974. According to Plaintiff, she was subjected to the term "nigger" since at...
OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, Chief Judge. This case is before the court for ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment (# 17) filed by Defendants Joseph S. Eisenhauer, Larry Thomason, Doug Miller and Bob Richard. This court has carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties and the documents filed by the parties. Following this careful and thorough review, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 17) is GRANTED. FACTS 1 Plaintiff was hired by the City of Danville Police Department (...
ORDER & OPINION JOE BILLY McDADE, Senior District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) filed on March 15, 2010. On April 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed her Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28), and on May 7, 2010, Defendant Filed its Reply (Doc. 32). For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 Plaintiff, Nancy Roop, was employed as a full-time instructor of travel and...
OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, Chief Judge. This case is before the court for ruling on cross motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff, Rotech Healthcare Inc. (Rotech) and Defendant, Synthia Ann Huff (Huff). 1 Both parties are seeking judgment as a matter of law on Rotech's Complaint (# 1) which was brought pursuant to section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3). This court has carefully reviewed the arguments of...
OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, Chief Judge. The Court now considers Defendant DISH Network L.L.C.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Dismissing Claims of Liability Based Upon the Conduct of Third Parties Not Identified in the Complaint. See d/e 70. FACTS 1 Plaintiffs the United States of America, the State of California, the State of Illinois, the State of North Carolina and the State of Ohio (collectively "Plaintiffs") allege that Defendant DISH Network L.L.C. ("DISH") is a seller of...
