MOORE v. CITY OF CHICAGO

Case No. 16 C 7143.

PHILIP MOORE, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, and Detention Aid ANTHONY F. JANTKE, #110620, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Philip Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel B. Nixa , The Nixa Law Firm, LLC.

The City of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Maria Elizabeth Magginas , City of Chicago Department of Law, Shawn William Barnett , City Of Chicago Department Of Law & Victoria Rose Benson , City of Chicago, Department of Law.

Anthony F. Jantke, Defendant, represented by Shawn William Barnett , City Of Chicago Department Of Law, Maria Elizabeth Magginas , City of Chicago Department of Law & Victoria Rose Benson , City of Chicago, Department of Law.


MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

Codefendants Anthony Jantke and the City of Chicago have filed a Dkt. No. 40 motion asking this Court to set a trial date. But that motion confirms that although discovery is complete (subject to the possible need for one additional deposition), what this Court views as essential preconditions to setting a case for trial — the parties' preparation, and submission for Court approval, of a jointly proposed final pretrial order (see this District Court's LR 16.1.4 form) and the presentation of motions in limine for Court approval — have not yet been generated by the parties' counsel. Although other judges may perhaps choose to put the cart before the horse by setting a future date for trial and working backwards from that date to set a timetable for satisfying those preconditions, this Court's experience teaches otherwise.

But this Court's preference is irrelevant, because recent surgery combined with a slow rehabilitation process have combined to require it to retire from the District Court, with its cases (including this one) to be reassigned to its colleagues by the customary computer-driven random assignment system. It will consequently be for the assignee judge in this case to address the subject raised by defendants' Dkt. No. 40 motion. In the meantime, this Court anticipates that counsel will first confer with the assignee judge as to his or her usual practice, so that the motion itself is denied without prejudice.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases