Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:17-cv-09061_de114> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-09061_de114 RegisterActionDate "2018-12-10" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-09061_de114 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey Cole:The defendant has filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927, In the main, the motion targets plaintiff's pleadings, arguing that the third amended complaint and the three prior complaints are all frivolous, contain fabrications of fact, and are not well-grounded in law. Of course, on a discovery referral [Dkt. #110], and without consent of the parties, determining whether pleadings are appropriate and resolving substantive issues of law are beyond the authority of a magistrate judge. There is currently pending before Judge Aspen a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint which may resolve these matters once and for all. Still, in this regard, it should be noted that the district court did grant plaintiff leave to file all but the initial version of his complaint, suggesting that, at the very least, the court did not find the amendments to be futile or that the plaintiff had repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies. Hagan v. Quinn, 867 F.3d 816, 829 n.6 (7th Cir. 2017); Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs., 588 F.3d 420, 432 (7th Cir. 2009). The balance of the defendant's motion targets the plaintiff's seven unsuccessful motions to compel discovery. Of course, when a motion to compel discovery is denied, the prevailing party may seek fees and costs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5). Review of the docket shows that defendant has not sought fees on any of these seven occasions. As the last such motion was denied nearly five months ago, it is too late in the game to seek fees now. See In re Peregrine Fin. Grp. Customer Litig., 2015 WL 1344466, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 2015); Buonauro v. City of Berwyn, 2011 WL 116870, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 2011); Autotech Technologies Ltd. Partnership v. Automationdirect.Com, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 396, 398 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Carfagno v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co., 2001 WL 34059032, 1 (W.D.Mich. 2001)(and cases cited). Moreover, the defendant's motion does not cite a single case regarding sanctions under either Rule 11 or Section 1927 for failed motions to compel discovery. That is fatal. See United States v. Cisneros, 846 F.3d 972, 978 (7th Cir.2017) (We have repeatedly and consistently held that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived. ; Bunn v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for Valley Bank Illinois, 908 F.3d 290, 29798 (7th Cir. 2018). Nor does the motion indicate whether defendant complied with Rule 11's safe harbor provision on each -- or, indeed, any -- of the seven occasions defendant complains of now. See, e.g., N. Illinois Telecom, Inc. v. PNC Bank, N.A., 850 F.3d 880, 888 (7th Cir. 2017). For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for sanctions [Dkt. #107] is denied. (rbf, ) (Entered: 12/10/2018)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-09061_de114 AdministrativeID "112" @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-09061_de114 hasJudgeReference SJ000226 @default.
- ilnd;;1:17-cv-09061_de114 hasJudgeReference SJ000265 @default.