Filed: Jan. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS FOR ALL PURPOSES DAVID NUFFER , Chief District Judge . Intervenor Defendants filed a motion for leave 1 to file a motion about the ambiguous record as to the presiding trial judge in the case. 2 The helpful factual summary 3 in the proposed motion shows that it is not clear that a presiding trial judge is assigned to this case. For nearly five years, Judge Clark Waddoups has been managing the case under the "Memorandum Decision and Order for
Summary: ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS FOR ALL PURPOSES DAVID NUFFER , Chief District Judge . Intervenor Defendants filed a motion for leave 1 to file a motion about the ambiguous record as to the presiding trial judge in the case. 2 The helpful factual summary 3 in the proposed motion shows that it is not clear that a presiding trial judge is assigned to this case. For nearly five years, Judge Clark Waddoups has been managing the case under the "Memorandum Decision and Order for J..
More
ORDER ASSIGNING CASE TO JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS FOR ALL PURPOSES
DAVID NUFFER, Chief District Judge.
Intervenor Defendants filed a motion for leave1 to file a motion about the ambiguous record as to the presiding trial judge in the case.2 The helpful factual summary3 in the proposed motion shows that it is not clear that a presiding trial judge is assigned to this case.
For nearly five years, Judge Clark Waddoups has been managing the case under the "Memorandum Decision and Order for Joint Case Management; and Transferring Case"4 signed by Judge Robert Shelby. That order directed the clerk's office to transfer the case to Judge Waddoups, who would "oversee and manage all non-dispositive, pretrial matters"5 and at his election, resolve dispositive motions.6 The Case Management Order also contemplated that the case would eventually be transferred back to Judge Robert Shelby for trial.7 On August 29, 2015, however, Judge Shelby recused from the case.8
At the time of Judge Shelby's recusal, the case was assigned to Judge Waddoups, and there was no mechanism for appointing a future judge to whom the case would be transferred for purposes of conducting a trial.
Judge Waddoups has managed this case, as a bellwether for more than 20 other cases, for nearly five years. He also tried a case with similar issues, also arising in Kane County.9 The long dockets in these cases reflect the substantial expertise acquired by Judge Waddoups; that the cases arise from similar events and facts10 and involve substantially the same parties;11 that the cases call for a determination of the same or substantially related questions of law and fact12 and that the cases would entail substantial duplication of labor or unnecessary court costs or delay if heard by different judges13 with a risk of inconsistent verdicts or outcomes.14 For these reasons, which are all identified as factors supporting the transfer of related cases to a single judge, which the court may address sua sponte pursuant to DUCivR 83-2(g), under my authority as chief district judge,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is assigned to Judge Waddoups for all purposes.
