Ramirez et al v. City of Chicago et al

Filing 364

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/21/2010:Mailed notice(srn, )

Ramirez et al v. City of Chicago et al

Doc. 364

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LAURA RAMIREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.

05 C 317

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This case--one of the most ancient on this Court's calendar--has had a number of false starts toward the generation of an acceptable final pretrial order ("FPTO"), whose entry is a necessary prelude to trial. At this point another pretrial

conference has been set for August 10, 2010, the earliest date at which all of the parties' counsel could convene. Until now this Court has left pending two outstanding motions, doing so on the premise that the FPTO, when finally entered, might either render the motions moot or simplify their disposition. But the extended passage of time involved in the

aborted efforts to produce a workable FPTO has rendered those motions overripe, and this memorandum order will accordingly dispatch them. One is easy: Dkt. 338, described on the current motions

report as the City of Chicago's motion "to bar or in the alternative for leave to file summary judgment." denied without prejudice. That motion is

It is to be expected that the

Dockets.Justia.com

forthcoming August 10 conference should signal whether any variant on that motion is appropriate, or whether instead the anticipated trial will resolve all of the issues without further motion practice. As for Dkt. 348, the "second motion in limine" tendered by defendant Carl Suchocki ("Suchocki"), his effort to extricate himself from the trial via a pretrial dismissal is wholly without merit. Plaintiffs' comprehensive March 2, 2010 response to

Suchocki's motion has provided chapter and verse demonstrating that a police record listing him at an unknown training site at the critical time at issue in this action cannot be treated as a dispositive fact, negating his involvement elsewhere at the time claimed by plaintiff James Ramirez. states succinctly: The record contains plenty of documentary evidence that Defendants Suchocki and Finnigan repeatedly were engaged in illegal conduct on the job, when, on paper, they were supposed to be elsewhere. Accordingly Suchocki's Dkt. 348 motion is denied. Like the As plaintiffs' Response at 2

other defendants, he must take his chances at trial (for which purpose, of course, the document on which he has sought to rely for dismissal can be offered in evidence as part of the grist for the jury's mill). ________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: July 21, 2010 2