Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de316> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 7 of
7
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de316 RegisterActionDate "2015-03-13" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de316 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: Before the Court are Defendants' consolidated motions for summary judgment 32 , 299 filed in La Playita Cicero, Inc. v. Town of Cicero, et al., 11-CV-5561 ("La Playita II") and La Playita Cicero, Inc. v. Town of Cicero, et al., 11-CV-1702 ("La Playita I"). The procedural and factual history of these cases is rather tortured. A general overview is contained in this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order in La Playita I. See March 11, 2014 Mem. Op. Order 13. Plaintiff has suggested consolidation, and in its continuing efforts to achieve a just, speedy, and cost-efficient resolution of both cases, the Court directed Plaintiffs first to respond to Section III.B of Defendants' consolidated motion, directed only at La Playita II, which argues that Plaintiffs' failure to file supplemental pleadings bars their claims in that case as to actions occurring after April 13, 2007. For the reasons provided herein, the Court denies Section III.B of Defendants motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' motion to strike arguments made for the first time in Defendants' Reply 312 is denied.Defendants raise an additional procedural issue in their summary judgment motions, namely that, under 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-217 and its "one refiling rule," Plaintiffs were only allowed to refile their claims once and, because La Playita I constitutes the first refiling of Plaintiffs' claims, La Playita II should be barred. The Court agrees that this issue should be resolved before addressing the merits; however, the docket does not appear to contain an answer by Defendants in either case. Accordingly, Defendants are directed to file an answer in La Playita I and La Playita II by April 3, 2015; Defendants may assert their one-refiling argument as an affirmative defense. Once Defendants file their answer and any affirmative defenses, they then can raise their one-refiling argument in a motion pursuant to Rule 12(c), and the Court will set a schedule for its resolution. In the meantime, the remaining portions of Defendants' consolidated motions for summary judgment 32 , 299 are stricken without prejudice. The Court sets a status hearing for April 10, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by the Honorable John Z. Lee on 3/13/15. [For further details see order.]Mailed notice(ca, ) (Entered: 03/13/2015)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de316 AdministrativeID "315" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de316 OntologyLabel order @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de316 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de300 @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de316 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de313 @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de316 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:11-cv-01702_de33 @default.