Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:11-cv-07500_de18> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 3 of
3
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07500_de18 RegisterActionDate "2012-03-14" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07500_de18 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Status hearing held. Plaintiffs' counsel reported that requests to admit were served, and Defendant responded primarily with admissions, including as to the liability amount. There is a still-pending question concerning contract language; the exhibit containing the contract was inadvertently not attached to the requests to admit. Although the requests to admit should resolve this matter and move the case to final judgment, Defendant resisted, but could not explain (other than Defendant's "right to respond") why requiring the filing of summary judgment motions would result in anything other than delay. The Court warned in open court that any response to the summary judgment motion must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Furthermore, the Court warns, in this order, that 28 U.S.C. 1927 authorizes any court to assess costs and fees for "unreasonably and vexatiously" "multipl[ying] the proceedings in any case." Motion for summary judgment to be filed on or before 04/30/12. Response due 05/14/12. Reply due 05/21/12. To streamline the summary judgment presentation, the Court relieves Plaintiffs of the need to file Local Rule 56.1 Statements; if the evidence is clear and has been admitted, a motion attaching the answers to the requests to admit should suffice (if Plaintiffs so choose, they may still follow Rule 56.1). Status hearing set for 06/07/12 at 8:30 a.m. Mailed notice (slb, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:11-cv-07500_de18 AdministrativeID "17" @default.