Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 10 of
10
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 RegisterActionDate "2020-07-06" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer: Attorney George Jackson has moved "with expressed trepidation" for leave to file an appearance on behalf of Defendant Courtland Stokes 82 . Mr. Jackson had appeared previously on behalf of Mr. Stokes, but withdrew in September 2019 when the court (after allowing several continuances) attempted to enforce what Mr. Jackson referred to as "sever [sic] time constraints." 49 The court notes that Mr. Jackson's trepidations about his ability to proceed effectively in this case appear to be well-founded; he reports that he has "an extensive client list," a "waiting list of potential new clients" and "has undertaken amassing a nationwide challenge" to unconstitutional court practices relating to COVID-19. The court is not willing to permit any appearance by Mr. Jackson that would require an extension of existing deadlines. The court notes, in this regard, that Mr. Stokes has not yet responded to MetLife's motion to dismiss his Second Amended Crossclaim. That motion was filed in February 71 and the court directed Stokes to respond by March 23, 2020. That date was extended by several general orders. Most recently, the court re-set the date for the response to June 26, 2020. Stokes reported he would be submitting a Third Amended Crossclaim on that date as well, in which he expected to amplify the facts he had alleged, but not offer any new legal theories. As of July 4, 2020, Stokes had not filed anything in opposition to the Second Amended Crossclaim, nor has he submitted a proposed Third Amended Crossclaim. He has not sought an extension. Mr. Jackson's motion for leave to file an appearance asserts that Mr. Stokes has not had access to the insurance policy at issue in this case, but that is patently not true. The policy is an exhibit to MetLife's motions to dismiss ( 42 , 71 .) To the extent Mr. Jackson's motion assumes he will need additional time to review that policy in connection with Mr. Stokes's representation, that motion 82 is denied. Met Life's motions to dismiss ( 41 , 70 ) are unopposed, appear to be well-supported, and are now granted. Cross-claims against MetLife are dismissed. Telephone hearing remains set for 7/8/2020 at 9:45 a.m. Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, ) (Entered: 07/06/2020)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 AdministrativeID "85" @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de44 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de45 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de52 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de73 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de74 @default.
- ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de88 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:19-cv-00311_de85 @default.