WALKER v. MERCER HR SERVICES, LLC, 15 C 11522. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20151231787
Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . This action has just been assigned to this Court's calendar, with the action having been brought from the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Lake County, Illinois to this federal court by a Notice of Removal ("Notice") filed by defendant Mercer HR Services, LLC ("Mercer"). Because the predicate for removal is the assertion by plaintiff Stephanie Walker ("Walker") that she was the victim of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR , Senior District Judge . This action has just been assigned to this Court's calendar, with the action having been brought from the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Lake County, Illinois to this federal court by a Notice of Removal ("Notice") filed by defendant Mercer HR Services, LLC ("Mercer"). Because the predicate for removal is the assertion by plaintiff Stephanie Walker ("Walker") that she was the victim of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII o..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
This action has just been assigned to this Court's calendar, with the action having been brought from the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Lake County, Illinois to this federal court by a Notice of Removal ("Notice") filed by defendant Mercer HR Services, LLC ("Mercer"). Because the predicate for removal is the assertion by plaintiff Stephanie Walker ("Walker") that she was the victim of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and because Complaint ¶29 alleges that EEOC issued a finding of "reasonable cause to believe violations of the statute occurred" and that Walker was therefore "given the right to file a civil action," this action is set for an early status hearing at 9 a.m. January 7, 2016. At or before that date Walker's counsel is ordered to file copies of her EEOC Charge of Discrimination and of EEOC's right-to-sue letter. This Court, plans to address the subject adverted to in n.1 and the possible setting of further proceedings in this action at that status hearing.1
FootNotes
1. It should be noted that n.1 of Mercer's Notice is wrong in stating that the requirements of removal under 28 U.S.C. §1332 (the diversity-of-citizenship branch of federal jurisdiction) have been satisfied. Mercer's counsel has surprisingly ignored the repeated teaching from our Court of Appeals, going back well over a decade, as to the relevant citizenship of a limited liability company (see, for example, the reiteration of the operative rules in Wise v. Wachovia Sec. LLC, 450 F.3d 266, 267 (7th Cir. 2006)).
Source: Leagle
