City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., 3:17 CV 50107. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20180314b75
Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2018
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IAIN D. JOHNSTON , Magistrate Judge . The Report and Recommendation dated 2/2/2018 is amended to add the following: In support of its recommendation that 18 CV 379 be reassigned based on relatedness, the Court agrees with the determination by Judge Consuelo Marshall of the Central District of California that both cases share a similarity of issues of fact or law, see Dkt. 109, Ex. C at 3-4. See Local Rule 40.4(a)(2). In addition, the Court finds that both cases ar
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IAIN D. JOHNSTON , Magistrate Judge . The Report and Recommendation dated 2/2/2018 is amended to add the following: In support of its recommendation that 18 CV 379 be reassigned based on relatedness, the Court agrees with the determination by Judge Consuelo Marshall of the Central District of California that both cases share a similarity of issues of fact or law, see Dkt. 109, Ex. C at 3-4. See Local Rule 40.4(a)(2). In addition, the Court finds that both cases are..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IAIN D. JOHNSTON, Magistrate Judge.
The Report and Recommendation dated 2/2/2018 is amended to add the following: In support of its recommendation that 18 CV 379 be reassigned based on relatedness, the Court agrees with the determination by Judge Consuelo Marshall of the Central District of California that both cases share a similarity of issues of fact or law, see Dkt. 109, Ex. C at 3-4. See Local Rule 40.4(a)(2). In addition, the Court finds that both cases are pending in this Court, reassignment is likely to result in a substantial saving of judicial time and effort because of the similarity of issues and defendants, the parties to this case are not yet at issue and discovery is limited to initial disclosures and so it has not progressed to the point where reassignment would likely cause delay, and because of the similarity of issues and defendants the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding. See Local Rule 40.4(b). Any objection must be filed by 3/12/2018. Failure to object may constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. See Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258, 260 (7th Cir. 1989).
Source: Leagle
