Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al

Filing 220

TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal 218 . Notified counsel (gel, )

SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INFORMATION SHEET
Include the names of all plaintiffs (petitioners) and defendants (respondents) who are parties
to the appeal. Use a separate sheet if needed.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DOCKET NUMBER:
PLAINTIFF (Petitioner)

v.

David Grochocinski/Appellee

06cv5486

DEFENDANT (Respondent)
Gerard Spehar/Appellant

(Use separate sheet for additional counsel)
PETITIONER’S COUNSEL

RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

Name

David Edward Morgans

Name

Gerard Spehar

Firm

Myers Carden & Sax, LLC

Firm

ProSe

Address

Thirty North LaSalle Street
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60602

Address

1625 Grandview Ave
Glendale, CA 91201

Phone

312-345-7250

Phone

818-247-0616

Other Information
District Judge

Kendall

Court Reporter

A. Metzler

Nature of Suit Code

190

COUNSEL:

Date Filed in District Court
Date of Judgment

2/3/2011

Date of Notice of Appeal

5154

10/10/2006

2/16/2011

Retained

Paid

Due

IFP Pending

FEE STATUS:

Appointed

Pro Se

U.S.

X

X

IFP
Waived

Has Docketing Statement been filed with the District Court Clerk’s Office?

Yes

No

X

If State/Federal Habeas Corpus (28 USC 2254/28 USC 2255), was Certificate of Appealability:
Granted

Denied

Pending

If Certificate of Appealability was granted or denied, date of order:
If defendant is in federal custody, please provide U.S. Marshall number (USM#):

IMPORTANT: THIS FORM IS TO ACCOMPANY THE SHORT RECORD SENT TO THE CLERK OF
THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 3(A). Rev 04/01

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 213 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:5135

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2
Eastern Division
David Grochocinski
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 1:06−cv−05486
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall

Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, et al.
Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, February 3, 2011:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Enter MEMORANDUM,
OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Spehars
Motion to Intervene and Dismisses his Motion to Alter or Amend as moot. Mailed
notice(tsa, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 214 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:5136

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID GROCHOCINSKI, not individually, but
solely in his capacity as the Chapter 7 Trustee
for the bankruptcy estate of CMGT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAYER BROWN ROWE & MAW LLP and
RONALD B. GIVEN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 06 C 5486
Judge Virginia M. Kendall

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
David Grochocinski (“Grochocinski”), in his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee for the
bankruptcy estate of CMGT, Inc. (“CMGT”) sued Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP (“Mayer
Brown”) and Ronald B. Given (“Given”), an attorney at Mayer Brown, (collectively “the
Defendants”) for legal malpractice. On March 31, 2010, this Court granted the Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment and entered final judgment. Non-party Gerard Spehar (“Spehar”) now
moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to intervene and pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter and amend the judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court
denies Spehar’s Motion to Intervene and dismisses his Motion to Alter and Amend as moot.
BACKGROUND
Spehar seeks to intervene in a lawsuit that began in August of 2006. On that date,
Grochocinski sued the Defendants in state court in Illinois, alleging legal malpractice arising from
the Defendants’ failure to appear and defend CMGT in a lawsuit in California. The Defendants
removed the case to this Court and, on November 30, 2006, moved to dismiss the Complaint,
arguing, among other things, that Spehar Capital (“SC”), Spehar’s venture capital consulting firm,

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 214 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:5137

orchestrated a fraud on the judicial system. Specifically, the Defendants argued that SC filed a
meritless suit against CMGT in California, obtained a Temporary Restraining Order that prevented
CMGT from obtaining financing, secured a “bogus” default judgment, used the default judgment to
file a single-creditor involuntary bankruptcy action against CMGT, and then “orchestrated and
funded” the filing of this malpractice suit. This Court initially rejected the Defendants’ argument,
concluding that the Defendants had failed to demonstrate that Grochocinski himself had perpetrated
fraud on the judicial system. (R. 49.) Nevertheless, upon denying the Defendants’ Motion to
Reconsider, the Court stated that it found the Defendants’ position as to “fraud on the Court” or
“unclean hands” persuasive. (R. 67; Transcript of Oct. 30, 2007 hearing at 2:22-25.) As a result,
the Court ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery on the “unclean hands” issue and, if
appropriate, file a motion for summary judgment on this issue. (Tr. at 7:23-8:2.) Following
discovery, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on their “unclean hands” defense. The
Court granted the Defendants’ Motion on March 31, 2010 (“the March 2010 Opinion”) and entered
final judgment in their favor. (R. 171, 172.)
On April 28, 2010, Spehar moved both to intervene and to alter and amend the judgment.
The next day, Grochocinski filed a Notice of Appeal and subsequently moved the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals to stay his appeal pending this Court’s resolution of Spehar’s Motions to Intervene
and to Alter or Amend. (R. 175; No. 10-2057, R. 2.) On May 13, 2010, the Seventh Circuit granted
Grochocinski’s Motion to Stay pending this Court’s resolution of Spehar’s Motion to Intervene. (R.
192; No. 10-2057, R. 5.) The Seventh Circuit ordered that all proceedings in the appeal be held in
abeyance until this Court ruled on the Motion to Intervene. (R. 192; No. 10-2057, R. 5.) The
Seventh Circuit construed the Defendants’ Response—filed the same day as the Seventh Circuit’s
2

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 214 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:5138

order—as a Motion to Reconsider and denied the Defendants’ Motion on June 22, 2010. (No. 102057, R. 10.) In its Response, the Defendants had argued that this Court no longer had jurisdiction
over Spehar’s Motions to Intervene and to Alter or Amend because Grochocinski had filed a Notice
of Appeal. (No. 10-2057, R. 7.)
Spehar moves to intervene in this case as a matter of right to protect his personal and
professional reputation, his ability to earn a living, and his Chartered Financial Analyst (“CFA”)
credential. In the alternative, he moves for permissive intervention. Spehar contends that he earns
his living as a financial consultant and that his “ability to attract and retain clients materially depends
on [his] good name and professional reputation.” (R. 173 at 2.) According to Spehar, this Court’s
March 2010 Opinion “scaths [his] good name and reputation,” and will undoubtably influence his
current or potential clients, making it impossible for him to earn a living. (R. 173 at 2.) Further,
Spehar asserts that if it is not altered, the March 2010 Opinion “will almost certainly cause the loss
of [his] CFA credential.” (R. 173 at 3.) Spehar’s Motion to Alter or Amend challenges the factual
findings in the Court’s March 2010 Order and contends, at the very least, that there are factual
disputes that cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
I.

Jurisdictional Argument
Before reaching the merits of Spehar’s Motions, the Court must address the Defendants’

jurisdictional argument. The Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Spehar’s
Motions because, once Grochocinski filed his Notice of Appeal, this Court was stripped of its
jurisdiction over all “aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” (See R. 200 at 3 (citing May v.
Sheahan, 226 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2000).) The Defendants are correct that the filing of a notice
3

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 214 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:5139

of appeal typically “divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved
in the appeal,” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982), including its
ability to consider a motion to intervene. See Roe v. Town of Highland, 909 F.2d 1097, 1100 (7th
Cir. 1990) (filing a notice of appeal at the same time as a motion to intervene divested the district
court of its jurisdiction over the case); Avoyelles Sportsmen’s League, Inc. v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897,
928 (5th Cir 1983) (“[T]he filing of a valid notice of appeal deprives the district court of jurisdiction
to consider motions for intervention.”). Here, however, the Seventh Circuit has stayed all
proceedings on appeal pending this Court’s resolution of Spehar’s Motion to Intervene and it rejected
the Defendants’ jurisdictional argument in its June 22, 2010 ruling. Thus, having been directed by
the Seventh Circuit to rule on Spehar’s Motion to Intervene, and there being no fear of duplication
of efforts, the Court proceeds to the merits of Spehar’s Motions. See, e.g., Rolle v. New York City
Hous. Auth., 294 F. Supp. 574, 576 (S.D.N.Y 1969) (recognizing an exception to the general
jurisdictional rule where the district court has “authorization from the Court of appeals”); Hobson
v. Hansen, 44 F.R.D. 18, 21 (D.D.C. 1968) (the district court has jurisdiction to rule on a motion to
intervene after a notice of appeal was filed where the D.C. Circuit had directed the district court to
decide the motion); c.f. Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F.2d 1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1989) (“[S]imultaneous
proceedings in multiple forums create confusion and duplication of efforts.”).
II.

Motion to Intervene
A.

Intervention As of Right

To intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2), a non-party must satisfy four requirements: (1)
the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must claim an interest relating to the property or
transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the
4

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 214 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5140

disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect
that interest; and (4) existing parties must not be adequate representatives of the applicant’s interest.
Sokaogon Chippewa Cmty. v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 945-46 (7th Cir. 2000). “Failure to satisfy any
one of the four intervention factors is sufficient grounds to deny the intervention.” U.S. v. BDO
Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Vollmer v. Publishers Clearing House, 248 F.3d
698, 705 (7th Cir. 2001)).
i.

Timeliness

The Court evaluates whether an application to intervene is timely according to a
reasonableness standard. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 68 F.3d 172, 175 (7th Cir.
1995) (timeliness factor requires “potential intervenors to be reasonably diligent in learning of a suit
that might affect their rights, and upon learning of such a suit, to act to intervene reasonably
promptly”). A party may not intervene if it dragged its heels after learning of its interest in a
lawsuit.1 See Nissei Sangyo Am., Ltd. v. United States, 31 F.3d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 1994). In
determining whether a motion to intervene is timely, the Court looks to four factors: (1) the length
of time the intervenor knew or should have known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice caused
to the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to the intervenor if the motion is denied; and
(4) any other unusual circumstances. See Sokaogon Chippewa Cmty., 214 F.3d at 949; People Who
Care, 68 F.3d at 175.

Here, Spehar knew or should have known that his personal and professional interests were

1

For purposes of this Opinion, the Court assumes that Spehar’s asserted interests— his personal and professional
reputation, his ability to earn a living as a financial advisor, and his CFA credential— are “direct, significant legally
protectable interest[s].” See Am. Nat’l Bank v. City of Chicago, 865 F.2d 144, 146 (7th Cir. 1989).

5

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 214 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:5141

affected by the litigation on October 30, 2007, when this Court granted discovery on the “unclean
hands” issue and put Spehar’s actions directly at issue in this case. In fact, Spehar concedes that he
knew his CFA credential was affected by the lawsuit on this date. (See R. 173 at 4 (“I had previously
disclosed Defendant’s ‘unclean hands’ allegation to the CFA Institute after this Court opened
discovery on that issue”); R. 205 at 4 (“I first notified the CFA Institute of the ‘unclean hands’
allegations in July 2008.”).) Nevertheless, he chose not to move to intervene in this case until twoand-a-half years after the Court opened discovery on this issue, on April 28, 2010.
Spehar argues that his personal and professional interests were not truly affected until the
Court issued its March 2010 Opinion. According to Spehar, “[n]o adverse affect to [his] personal
interests could have been reasonably known or anticipated until this Court determined the ‘unclean
hands’ issue in its Opinion.” (R. 205 at 5.) The factual findings in the March 2010 Opinion,
however, were not dreamed-up by the Court. On the contrary, they are based firmly in the record,
specifically, in the parties’ Local Rule 56.1 filings. Thus, at the very latest, at the time the
Defendants moved for summary judgment on their “unclean hands” defense—May 29,
2009—Spehar knew the extent of the allegations against him, both personally and professionally.
Instead of moving to intervene at this (or an earlier) point, Spehar chose to take a chance that the
Court would deny the Defendants’ Motion. Spehar has no legitimate reason for waiting so long to
intervene. He “‘dragged his feet’ on an issue of which he had been aware for years.” See People
Who Care, 68 F.3d at 176 (affirming the district court’s conclusion that the petitioner’s motion was
untimely despite his argument that the court’s most recent order was the motivation for his motion).
Thus, Spehar has failed to establish that he moved to intervene in a timely manner after he learned
of the case’s effect on his interests.
6

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 214 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:5142

Moreover, allowing Spehar to intervene after the Court has entered final judgment would
prejudice the Defendants, who have been litigating this case—with Spehar’s knowledge—since
2006. The Defendants have consistently put Spehar’s conduct at issue in this case. As early as
November 30, 2006, when the Defendants moved to dismiss, their brief discussed Spehar by name,
contending that he had “attempt[ed] to perpetrate a fraud on three courts and the system of justice
generally.” (R. 16 at 7.) The Defendants reiterated these charges in their Motion to Reconsider, filed
on July 13, 2007, and again, more specifically this time, in their May 29, 2009 Motion for Summary
Judgment. To allow Spehar to intervene now that the Court has affirmed the truth of many of these
allegations would cause significant delay and would result in prejudice to the Defendants.
Finally, neither prejudice to Spehar nor the special circumstances of this case weigh in favor
of intervention. The Court specifically found in its March 2010 Opinion that “Grochocinski acted
at all times as a proxy for the real party in this case, SC.” (R. 171 at 19.) Having directed this
lawsuit from the beginning and being fully aware of the risks it may have to his personal and
professional interests, Spehar cannot now contend that he has suffered prejudice. Further, despite
Spehar’s claims, Grochocinski has adequately represented Spehar’s personal and professional
interests before the Court. He has rebutted the Defendants’ personal attacks against Spehar. For
example, in his Response to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Grochocinski asked the Court to
strike the Defendants’ “personal attacks” against himself and Spehar, (R. 22 at 4.), and in his
Response to the Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider, Grochocinski flatly denied that Spehar had
committed fraud on any court. (See R. 53 at 6.) Further, in his Response to the Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment, Grochocinski set forth the facts precisely as Spehar believes them to be.
(See R. 150-52.) Spehar is not prejudiced by being denied the opportunity to reiterate the losing
7

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 214 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:5143

arguments that Grochocinski has made to the Court on several occasions. Accordingly, the Court
denies Spehar’s Motion to Intervene as a Matter of Right as untimely. See, e.g., People Who Care,
68 F.3d at 179 (“Finding the motion untimely, we need not address the other factors for
consideration in a motion to intervene.”).
B.

Permissive Intervention

In his Reply Brief, Spehar also seeks permissive intervention. Arguments raised for the first
time in a reply brief are typically waived. See Simpson v. Office of Chief Judge of Circuit Court of
Will County, 559 F.3d 706, 719 (7th Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, because Spehar is proceeding pro se,
the Court will address his argument. Pursuant to Rule 24(b)(1)(B), the Court “may permit anyone
to intervene who . . . has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of
law or fact.” According to the Rule, “[i]n exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether
the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). Like intervention as a matter of right, permissive intervention “is proper only
where the application was timely.” Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701
(7th Cir. 2003). Thus, for the reasons discussed above, the Court also denies Spehar’s Motion to
Intervene Pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2).
III.

Motion to Alter or Amend
Because the Court denied Spehar’s Motion to Intervene, it lacks jurisdiction over his Rule

59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the March 2010 Opinion. See Zbaraz v. Madigan, 572 F.3d 370,
377 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Rule 59 requires that the person or entity filing the motion to alter the
judgment be a “party” before the court.”). Accordingly, the Court dismisses Spehar’s Motion to
Alter or Amend as moot.
8

Case: 1:06-cv-05486 Document #: 214 Filed: 02/03/11 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:5144

CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Spehar’s Motion to Intervene and Dismisses
his Motion to Alter or Amend as moot.

________________________________________
Virginia M. Kendall
United States District Judge
Northern District of Illinois

Date: February 3, 2011

9

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 1 of 22

APPEAL, DENLOW, TERMED

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06-cv-05486
Internal Use Only

Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP et al
Assigned to: Honorable Virginia M. Kendall
Case in other court: 10-02057
Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

Date Filed: 10/10/2006
Date Terminated: 03/31/2010
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
David Grochocinski
not individually but solely in his
capacity as the Chapter 7 Trustee for
the bankruptcy estate of CMGT, Inc.

represented by David Edward Morgans
Myers Carden & Sax, LLC
Thirty North LaSalle Street
Suite 2200
Chicago, Il 60602
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arthur W. Aufmann
Edward T. Joyce & Associates P.C.
135 S. LaSalle Street
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60603
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward T. Joyce
Edward T. Joyce & Associates P.C.
135 S. LaSalle Street
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60603
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert D Carroll
Edward T. Joyce & Associates P.C.
135 S. LaSalle Street
Suite 2200

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 2 of 22

Chicago, IL 60603
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP

represented by Mitchell L. Marinello
Novack & Macey
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Novack
Novack & Macey LLP
100 North Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven J. Ciszewski
Novack & Macey
100 North Riverside Plaza
Suite 1500
Chicago, IL 60606
[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ronald B Given

represented by Stephen Novack
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Charles W Trautner
TERMINATED: 06/12/2007
Movant

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Gerard Spehar

Page 3 of 22

represented by Gerard Spehar
1625 Grandview Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201
[phone]
PRO SE

Movant
Ronald Holman

Date Filed

represented by Ronald Holman
4516 Baden Avenue
Chatsworth, CA 9134
[phone]
PRO SE
#

Docket Text

10/10/2006

1

NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, County
Department, Law Division, case number (2006 L 8944) filed by Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP with copies of summons and complaint. (vmj, )
(Entered: 10/12/2006)

10/10/2006

2

CIVIL Cover Sheet (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)

10/10/2006

3

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
by Mitchell L. Marinello (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)

10/10/2006

4

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
by Steven J. Ciszewski (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)

10/10/2006

5

(Court only) RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid on 10/10/2006
in the amount of $350.00, receipt number 10644027 (vmj, ) (Entered:
10/12/2006)

10/12/2006

MAILED Letter regarding notice of removal with an attorney appearance
form to Edward T. Joyce, plaintiff's counsel. (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/12/2006)

10/17/2006

6

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff David Grochocinski by Robert D
Carroll (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/17/2006

7

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff David Grochocinski by Arthur W.
Aufmann (Aufmann, Arthur) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/17/2006

8

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff David Grochocinski by Edward T.
Joyce (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 10/17/2006)

10/20/2006

9

2 SUMMONS and 2 copies Issued as to Defendants Ronald B Given,
Charles W Trautner (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

11/21/2006

10

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for leave to file excess pages Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Twenty-Page Brief (Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered: 11/21/2006)

11/21/2006

11

NOTICE of Motion by Mitchell L. Marinello for presentment of motion
for leave to file excess pages 10 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 4 of 22

11/28/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
11/21/2006

12

Amended NOTICE of Motion by Mitchell L. Marinello for presentment of
motion for leave to file excess pages 10 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 11/28/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered:
11/21/2006)

11/27/2006

13

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : Unopposed motion for
leave to file twenty-page brief 10 is granted. The presentment date of
11/28/2006 for said motion is hereby stricken. Mailed notice (gmr, )
(Entered: 11/27/2006)

11/30/2006

14

ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw
LLP, Ronald B Given by Stephen Novack (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
11/30/2006)

11/30/2006

15

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given to dismiss (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

11/30/2006

16

MEMORANDUM by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
in Support of motion to dismiss 15 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B# 2
Exhibit C-E)(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

11/30/2006

17

NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion to
dismiss 15 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/5/2006 at 09:00
AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 11/30/2006)

12/04/2006

18

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : Briefing schedule as to
motion to dismiss 15 set as follows: Responses due by 12/19/2006. Replies
due by 12/29/2006. The Court will rule by mail. The presentment date of
12/5/2006 for said motion is hereby stricken. Status hearing set for
1/30/2007 at 9:00 AM. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 12/04/2006)

12/04/2006

Set/Reset Hearings Status hearing set for 1/30/2007 at 09:00 AM. (gmr, )
(Entered: 12/04/2006)

12/15/2006

19

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time to file
response/reply to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Carroll, Robert)
(Entered: 12/15/2006)

12/15/2006

20

NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file response/reply 19 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 12/21/2006 at 09:00 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
12/15/2006)

12/19/2006

21

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion for extension of
time to file response/reply regarding MOTION by Defendants Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to dismiss 15 19 is granted as
follows: Responses due by 1/5/2007. Replies due by 1/24/2007. The Court
will rule by mail. Status hearing set for 1/30/2007 is stricken and reset to
2/22/2007 at 9:00 AM.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

12/19/2006

(Court only) Set/Reset Hearings: Status hearing set for 2/22/2007 at 09:00
AM. (gmr, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 5 of 22

01/05/2007

22

RESPONSE by David Grochocinski to MOTION by Defendants Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to dismiss 15 (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit 1)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/05/2007

23

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file excess pages
(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/05/2007

24

NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for
leave to file excess pages 23 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
1/11/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/05/2007

25

RESPONSE by David Grochocinski to MOTION by Defendants Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to dismiss 15 (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit 1)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 01/05/2007)

01/10/2007

26

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion for leave to file
excess pages 23 is granted to 26 pages. The presentment date of 1/11/2007
for said motion is hereby stricken.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:
01/10/2007)

01/16/2007

27

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for extension of time to file Reply Brief, MOTION by Defendants
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for leave to file excess
pages with Reply Brief (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 01/16/2007)

01/16/2007

28

NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file, motion for leave to file excess pages,, 27 before
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 1/22/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Ciszewski,
Steven) (Entered: 01/16/2007)

01/19/2007

29

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion for extension of
time to file reply brief 27 is granted to and including 2/7/2007. Motion for
leave to file excess pages 27 is granted to 26 pages. Status hearing set for
2/22/2007 is stricken and reset to 3/14/2007 at 9:00 AM.Mailed notice
(gmr, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

01/19/2007

(Court only) Set/Reset Hearings: Status hearing set for 3/14/2007 at 09:00
AM. (gmr, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

02/02/2007

30

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time to Serve
Defendant Charles W. Trautner (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-D)(Carroll,
Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/02/2007

31

NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of extension of
time 30 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 2/8/2007 at 09:00 AM.
(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/07/2007

32

REPLY by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given to dismiss 15 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 02/07/2007)

02/08/2007

33

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion hearing held.
Motion for extension of time to serve Defendant Charles W. Trautner 30 is
granted to and including 4/9/2007.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 6 of 22

02/08/2007)
03/07/2007

34

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :At the Court's direction,
status hearing set for 3/14/2007 is stricken and reset to 3/28/2007 at 09:00
AM.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)

03/14/2007

35

ALIAS Summons Issued as to Charles W Trautner. (td, ) (Entered:
03/15/2007)

03/28/2007

36

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing held and
continued to 5/16/2007 at 09:00 AM. Counsel shall file position papers as
discussed on the record by 4/18/2007.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:
03/28/2007)

04/09/2007

37

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time (Second)
to Serve Defendant Charles W. Trautner (Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
04/09/2007)

04/09/2007

38

NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of extension of
time 37 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/17/2007 at 09:00 AM.
(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 04/09/2007)

04/17/2007

39

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion hearing held.
Motion for extension of time to Serve Defendant Charles W. Trautner 37 is
granted to and including 6/8/2007. Final Extension. Status hearing set for
5/16/2007 is stricken and reset to 6/11/2007 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice
(gmr, ) (Entered: 04/17/2007)

04/17/2007

40

ALIAS Summons one Original and one copy on Issued as to Charles W.
Trautner. (hp, ) (Entered: 04/18/2007)

04/18/2007

41

Plaintiff's Position Paper Regarding Referral to the Bankruptcy Court by
David Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 04/18/2007)

04/18/2007

42

Lawyer Defendants' Position Statement Regarding Possible Referral to
Bankruptcy Judge STATEMENT by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP,
Ronald B Given (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
04/18/2007)

05/11/2007

43

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :At the Court's direction,
status hearing set for 6/11/2007 is stricken and reset to 6/18/2007 at 09:00
AM.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)

06/08/2007

44

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by David Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert)
(Entered: 06/08/2007)

06/12/2007

45

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : Pursuant to the Notice
of Rule 41(a)(1)(I) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, Defendant
Charles W.Trautner is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Mailed notice
(hp, ) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

06/13/2007

46

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :At the Court's direction,
status hearing set for 6/18/2007 is stricken and reset to 6/25/2007 at 09:00
AM.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 06/13/2007)

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 7 of 22

06/25/2007

47

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing held and
continued to 12/31/2007 at 09:00 AM. Fact Discovery ordered closed by
12/21/2007. Expert Discovery ordered closed by 2/7/2008. Any dispositive
motions shall be filed by 3/7/2008. Responses due by 4/7/2008. Replies
due by 4/21/2008. The Court will rule by mail.Mailed notice (gmr, )
(Entered: 06/28/2007)

06/28/2007

48

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :For the reasons set out
in the Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Lawyer Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss 15 is granted in part and denied in part.Mailed notice (gmr, )
(Entered: 06/28/2007)

06/28/2007

49

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by Judge Virginia M.
Kendall on 6/28/2007:Mailed notice(gmr, ) (Entered: 06/28/2007)

07/13/2007

50

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for reconsideration regarding order on motion to dismiss, text entry
48 , memorandum opinion and order 49 and/or for other relief (Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 07/13/2007)

07/13/2007

51

NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for
reconsideration, motion for relief,, 50 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 7/19/2007 at 09:00 AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
07/13/2007)

07/19/2007

52

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion hearing held.
Briefing schedule regarding motion for reconsideration and motion for
relief 50 set as follows: Responses due by 8/9/2007. Replies due by
8/23/2007. The Court will rule by mail.Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:
07/19/2007)

08/09/2007

53

RESPONSE by David Grochocinskiin Opposition to MOTION by
Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for
reconsideration regarding order on motion to dismiss, text entry 48 ,
memorandum opinion and order 49 and/or for other relief 50 (Carroll,
Robert) (Entered: 08/09/2007)

08/23/2007

54

REPLY by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to response
in opposition to motion, 53 , MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe
& Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for reconsideration regarding order on
motion to dismiss, text entry 48 , memorandum opinion and order 49
and/or for other relief 50 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

08/30/2007

55

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to strike Portions of Defendants
Reply in Support of Their Motion to Reconsider (Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
08/30/2007)

08/30/2007

56

NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion to
strike 55 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 9/6/2007 at 09:00 AM.
(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 08/30/2007)

09/05/2007

57

RESPONSE by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Givenin
Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to strike Portions

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 8 of 22

of Defendants Reply in Support of Their Motion to Reconsider 55 (Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
09/05/2007

58

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Motion to strike 55 is
denied. The presentment date of 9/6/2007 for said motion is hereby
stricken. Oral argument set for 9/13/2007 at 10:00 AM. Said hearing is set
for 30 minutes (15 minutes per side). Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered:
09/05/2007)

09/06/2007

59

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :By agreement of
counsel, Oral Argument set for 9/13/2007 is stricken and reset to
9/26/2007 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 09/06/2007)

09/18/2007

60

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file Cite Additional
Authority, Previously Unavailable Authority During Oral Argument
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 09/18/2007)

09/18/2007

61

NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for
leave to file 60 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 9/26/2007 at
10:00 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 09/18/2007)

09/21/2007

62

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Plaintiff's motion for
leave to cite additional previously unavailable authority during oral
argument 60 is granted. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 09/21/2007)

09/26/2007

63

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Oral argument held on
9/26/2007. Motion for reconsideration 50 is taken under advisement.
Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 09/26/2007)

10/09/2007

64

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing set for
10/16/2007 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 10/10/2007)

10/16/2007

65

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing held on
10/16/2007. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 10/18/2007)

10/25/2007

66

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing set for
10/30/2007 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (gmr, ) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

10/30/2007

67

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall :Status hearing held. For
the reasons stated on the record in open court, motion for reconsideration
50 is denied. Discovery regarding "unclean hands" ordered closed by
1/28/2008. Any motion for summary judgment shall be filed by 2/28/2008.
Responses due by 3/28/2008. Replies due by 4/11/2008. Mailed notice
(gmr, ) (Entered: 10/30/2007)

10/30/2007

(Court only) Set eadlines as to Responses due by 3/28/2008 Replies due by
4/11/2008. (hp, ) (Entered: 10/31/2007)

11/06/2007

68

Plaintiff's Request to Admit to Defendant Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw
LLP by David Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 11/06/2007)

11/06/2007

69

Plaintiff's Request to Admit to Defendant Ronald B. Given by David
Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 11/06/2007)

12/03/2007

70

RESPONSE by Defendant Ronald B Given to Plaintiff's Request to Admit

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 9 of 22

(Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
12/03/2007

71

RESPONSE by Defendant Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP to Plaintiff's
Request to Admit (Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered: 12/03/2007)

12/07/2007

72

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for protective order
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/07/2007

73

NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for
protective order 72 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/13/2007
at 09:00 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 12/07/2007)

12/11/2007

74

RESPONSE by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Givenin
Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for protective
order 72 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 12/11/2007)

12/12/2007

75

REPLY by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to motion for protective order 72
in Support of (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
12/12/2007)

12/13/2007

76

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : Hearing held re motion
for a protective order 72 . Deadline to complete discovery is extended to
03/3/08. Case is referred to Magistrate Judge Denlow for issues relating to
discovery on this motion. Parties are to produce a privilege log to Judge
Denlow no later than 3/10/08. Case set for Further Status hearing before
Judge Kendall on 3/19/2008 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice. (kw, ) (Entered:
12/13/2007)

12/13/2007

77

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1, this case is hereby referred to the calendar of
Magistrate Judge Morton Denlow for the purpose of holding proceedings
related to: discovery supervision.(kw, )Mailed notice. (Entered:
12/13/2007)

12/13/2007

(Court only) MOTIONS REFERRED: MOTION by Plaintiff David
Grochocinski for protective order 72 . (rp, ) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

12/17/2007

78

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : To clarify minute entry
# 76 from the hearing regarding Plaintiff's motion for a protective order,
the expedited referral to Magistrate Judge Denlow for all discovery 77
includes a referral to Magistrate Judge Denlow for determination of
Plaintiff's Motion for a protective order 72 . Mailed notice. (kw, ) (Entered:
12/17/2007)

12/17/2007

79

MINUTE entry before Judge Morton Denlow :This case has been referred
to Judge Denlow to conduct a settlement conference. The parties are
directed to review and to comply with Judge Denlow's Standing Order
Setting Settlement Conference. Copies are available in chambers or
through Judge Denlow's web page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Judge
Denlow requires full compliance with this standing order before
conducting a settlement conference. Failure to comply with the provisions
of the Court's Standing Order Setting Settlement Conference may result in
the unilateral cancellation of the settlement conference by the Court. The
parties shall jointly contact the courtroom deputy, Donna Kuempel at

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 10 of 22

312/435-5857, with mutually agreeable dates or appear at 10:00 a.m. on
1/15/08 to set a settlement conference date. Because of the volume of
settlement conferences conducted by Judge Denlow, once a settlement
conference date has been agreed upon, no continuance will be granted
without a motion showing extreme hardship. Parties are required to deliver
to chambers or fax to chambers (312/554-8547) copies of their most recent
settlement demands and offers at least three (3) business days prior to the
settlement conference.Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
12/18/2007

80

MINUTE entry before Judge Morton Denlow :Status hearing reset to
1/17/2008 at 10:00 AM. on request of the parties in Courtroom 1350.
Parties shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, Room
1356, five business days before the initial status hearing. If the parties have
recently prepared and filed an initial status report, the submission of the
previously filed initial status report is sufficient. The parties are directed to
review and to comply with Judge Denlow's standing order setting initial
status report. Copies are available in chambers or through Judge Denlow's
web page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Status hearing set for 1/15/08 is
stircken.Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 12/18/2007)

01/09/2008

81

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : On the Court's own
motion, the Status hearing currently set for 3/19 is stricken and reset to
Wednesday, 3/26/2008 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice. (kw, ) (Entered:
01/09/2008)

01/10/2008

82

STATUS Report by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-5)(Marinello, Mitchell) (Entered:
01/10/2008)

01/17/2008

83

MINUTE entry before Judge Morton Denlow :Magistrate Judge Status
hearing held on 1/17/2008. Plaintiff's brief concerning privilege log due by
2/20/08. Defendants brief due by 3/26/08. Plaintiff's reply due 4/9/08. Oral
argument set for 4/23/2008 at 10:00 AM. regarding privilege log.Mailed
notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)

02/13/2008

84

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file excess pages of
15 of Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of His Privilege Log Assertions
(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 02/13/2008)

02/13/2008

85

NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for presentment of motion for
leave to file excess pages 84 before Honorable Morton Denlow on
2/20/2008 at 09:15 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 02/13/2008)

02/14/2008

86

MINUTE entry before Judge Morton Denlow :Motion for leave to file
excess pages 84 is granted. Motion hearing set for 2/20/08 is stricken.
Motions terminated: Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 02/14/2008)

02/18/2008

87

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for extension of time to complete discovery regarding "unclean
hands," "unjust result" or "fraud on the court" defenses (Ciszewski,
Steven) (Entered: 02/18/2008)

02/18/2008

88

NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 11 of 22

extension of time to complete discovery 87 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 2/26/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered:
02/18/2008)
02/19/2008

89

MINUTE entry before Judge Virginia M. Kendall : The Unopposed
Motion for extension of time to complete discovery 87 is granted.
Discovery regarding the Defenses shall be completed by 7/31/2008. The
status hearing previously set for 3/26/08 is stricken and reset for 8/5/2008
at 09:00 AM. The 2/26/08 presentment date for said motion is stricken; no
appearance is required. Mailed notice. (kw, ) (Entered: 02/19/2008)

02/20/2008

90

Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of His Privilege Log Assertions by
David Grochocinski (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit
3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9
Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 02/20/2008)

03/24/2008

91

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for leave to file excess pages and to reset oral argument date
(Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 03/24/2008)

03/24/2008

92

NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for
leave to file excess pages 91 before Honorable Morton Denlow on
3/26/2008 at 09:15 AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 03/24/2008)

03/25/2008

93

MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Morton Denlow:Unopposed
Motion for leave to file 26-page brief and reset oral argument date 91 is
granted. Oral argument reset to 5/14/08 at 10:00 AM. regarding privilege
log. Oral argument set for 4/23/08 is stricken. Motion hearing set for
3/26/08 is stricken. Motions terminated: Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered:
03/25/2008)

03/26/2008

94

RESPONSE by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given to other, 90 Plaintiff's privilege log assertions (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A-C, # 2 Exhibit D-F)(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 03/26/2008)

04/09/2008

95

REPLY by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to other, 90 in Support of His
Memorandum in Support of His Privilege Log Assertions (Attachments: #
1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
04/09/2008)

05/14/2008

96

MINUTE entry before Judge Honorable Morton Denlow:Oral argument
held on 5/14/2008 regarding privilege log. Motion taken under advisement.
Ruling by mail on or by 6/4/08.Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered:
05/14/2008)

05/19/2008

97

Plaintiff's Submission Regarding Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan by David
Grochocinski (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Carroll, Robert)
(Entered: 05/19/2008)

05/20/2008

98

MEMORANDUM Response 94 by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP,
Ronald B Given Supplemental Memorandum Regarding 2005 Dexia
Credit Opinion (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 05/20/2008)

06/04/2008

99

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Morton Denlow:On the Court's

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 12 of 22

request, the ruling regarding privilege log is due on or by 6/11/08. Ruling
date of 6/4/08 is stricken.Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
06/09/2008

100

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Morton Denlow:Plaintiff's Motion
for protective order 72 is granted in part and denied in part. Enter
Memorandum Opinions and Order. All matters relating to the referral of
this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the assigned
judge.Case no longer referred to Honorable Morton Denlow.; Motions
terminated: ; JMailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

06/09/2008

101

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Morton
Denlow on 6/9/2008:Mailed notice(dmk, ) (Entered: 06/09/2008)

06/23/2008

102

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for extension of time (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

06/23/2008

103

NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of extension
of time 102 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/26/2008 at 09:00
AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

06/23/2008

104

Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Denlow's Memorandum Opinion and
Order Dated June 9, 2008 by David Grochocinski (Attachments: # 1 Errata
Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit
4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8
Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 10)(Carroll,
Robert) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

06/23/2008

105

Notice of Objection NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for
presentment of before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/26/2008 at
09:00 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 06/23/2008)

06/24/2008

106

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Plaintiff's
objections to the magistrate judge's memorandum opinion and order dated
6/9/2008 are taken under advisement. Any responses are to be filed by
7/11/2008. No reply is necessary. Court will rule by mail.Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 06/24/2008)

06/26/2008

107

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendant's
telephonic request for an extension of time to 7/18/2008 to file a response
to plaintiff's objections to the magistrate's memorandum opinion and order
dated 6/9/2008 is granted. Court will rule by mail.Mailed notice (jms, )
(Entered: 06/26/2008)

06/26/2008

108

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendant's
motion for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge's
alternative ruling in the memorandum opinion and order dated 6/9/2008 is
taken under advisement. Court will rule on the motion when it rules on the
objections to the magistrate judge's memorandum opinion and order dated
6/9/2008.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

07/07/2008

(Court only) ***Motions terminated: MOTION by Defendants Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for extension of time 102
(jms, ) (Entered: 07/07/2008)

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 13 of 22

07/11/2008

109

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given to reset Discovery Deadline regarding the Defenses (Ciszewski,
Steven) (Entered: 07/11/2008)

07/11/2008

110

NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion to
reset 109 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 7/17/2008 at 09:00
AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 07/11/2008)

07/14/2008

111

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendants'
unopposed motion to reset discovery deadline 109 is granted. Discovery
regarding the defenses shall be completed by 10/31/2008. Status hearing
date of 8/5/2008 is reset for 11/4/2008 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (jms, )
(Entered: 07/14/2008)

07/18/2008

112

RESPONSE by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given to other, 104 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Novack, Stephen)
(Entered: 07/18/2008)

07/24/2008

113

Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants' Previously Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time by David Grochocinski (Carroll, Robert) (Entered:
07/24/2008)

07/24/2008

114

Notice of Objection NOTICE of Motion by Robert D Carroll for
presentment of before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 7/31/2008 at
09:00 AM. (Carroll, Robert) (Entered: 07/24/2008)

07/28/2008

115

RESPONSE by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B.
Given to plaintiff's objection to defendants' previously unoppoed motion
for extension of time 113 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Ciszewski,
Steven) (Text Modified by Clerk's Office on 7/29/2008) (hp, ). (Entered:
07/28/2008)

07/30/2008

116

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Plaintiff's
objection to defendant's previously unopposed motion for extension of
time and defendant's response are taken under advisement. Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 07/30/2008)

10/22/2008

117

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for extension of time to complete discovery regarding the
"Defenses" (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 10/22/2008)

10/22/2008

118

NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for
extension of time to complete discovery 117 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 10/28/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered:
10/22/2008)

10/28/2008

119

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Defendants are
given to 11/12/2008 to file objections to the alternative ruling. In addition,
Defendants unopposed motion to reset the discovery deadline is granted so
that discovery may be completed pending the resolution of these privilege
issues. Discovery is ordered closed January 31, 2009. Status hearing date
of 11/4/2008 is reset for 2/3/2009 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (jms, )
(Entered: 10/28/2008)

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 14 of 22

11/12/2008

120

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
GivenObjection to Alternative Ruling in Magistrate Denlow's June 9, 2008
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C)(Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 11/12/2008)

11/12/2008

121

NOTICE of Motion by Steven J. Ciszewski for presentment of motion for
miscellaneous relief 120 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
11/18/2008 at 09:00 AM. (Ciszewski, Steven) (Entered: 11/12/2008)

11/13/2008

122

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Defendants'
objection to the alternative ruling in Magistrate Judge Denlow's 6/9/2008
memorandum opinion and order is taken under advisement. Court will rule
by mail.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 11/13/2008)

01/22/2009

123

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Sua sponte,
status hearing date of 2/3/2009 is reset for 2/12/2009 at 09:00 AM.Mailed
notice (jms, ) (Entered: 01/22/2009)

01/30/2009

124

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: This Court
intends to adopt Judge Denlows alternative ruling. Defendants are given
two weeks from the date of this order to file objections to the alternative
ruling. In addition, Defendants Unopposed Motion to Reset the Discovery
Deadline is granted so that discovery may be completed pending the
resolution of these privilege issues. Discovery is ordered closed March 31,
2009.Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

01/30/2009

(Court only) Set/Reset Deadlines: Discovery ordered closed by 3/31/2009.
(jms, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)

02/02/2009

125

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Sua sponte,
status hearing date of 2/12/2009 is reset for 3/31/2009 at 09:00 AM.Mailed
notice (jms, ) (Entered: 02/02/2009)

02/13/2009

126

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
GivenObjection to Alternative Ruling (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-C, # 2
Exhibit C contd., # 3 Exhibit D-G, # 4 Exhibit H, # 5 Exhibit I)(Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 02/13/2009)

02/17/2009

127

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to strike MOTION by
Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B GivenObjection
to Alternative Ruling 126 Supplemental Objection (Joyce, Edward)
(Entered: 02/17/2009)

02/17/2009

128

NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion to
strike, motion for relief 127 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
2/23/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 02/17/2009)

02/20/2009

129

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Having been
entered in error, this courts order dated January 30, 2009 [ doc # 124] is
vacated. This Court therefore adopts Judge Denlows alternative ruling.
Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 02/20/2009)

02/20/2009

130

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall: Plaintiffs
Motion to Strike Defendants Supplemental Objections to Judge Denlows

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 15 of 22

alternative ruling [#127]is granted.. Discovery remains open until March
31, 2009. Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 02/20/2009)
03/31/2009

131

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Status hearing
held on 3/31/2009. Defendants oral motion for an extension of fact
discovery cut-off date is granted. Fact discovery ordered closed by
5/1/2009. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by
6/1/2009; Response due by 6/29/2009; Reply due by 7/20/2009.Mailed
notice (tlp, ) (Entered: 03/31/2009)

05/08/2009

132

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for leave to file excess pages (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
05/08/2009)

05/08/2009

133

NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for
leave to file excess pages 132 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
5/14/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 05/08/2009)

05/12/2009

134

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendants'
unopposed motion for leave to file its summary judgment brief in excess of
15 pages and limited to 30 pages and for leave to file a Rule 56.1 statement
with 150 paragraphs 132 is granted. Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered:
05/12/2009)

05/29/2009

135

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for summary judgment On Their Unclean Hands Defenses (Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009

136

MEMORANDUM by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given
in support of motion for summary judgment 135 On Their Unclean Hands
Defenses (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Transcript of Proceedings)(Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009

137

RULE 56.1(a) Statement by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given regarding motion for summary judgment 135 On Their Unclean
Hands Defenses (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

05/29/2009

138

APPENDIX Rule 56 statement 137 to Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement of
Undisputed Facts in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment Based on Their Unclean Hands Defenses (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits B-F, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits G-I, # 4 Exhibit J
Part 1, # 5 Exhibit J Part 2, # 6 Exhibit J Part 3, # 7 Exhibit J Part 4, # 8
Exhibit J Part 5, # 9 Exhibit J Part 6, # 10 Exhibit J Part 7, # 11 Exhibit J
Part 8, # 12 Exhibit J Part 9, # 13 Exhibit J Part 10, # 14 Exhibit J Part 11,
# 15 Exhibit J Part 12, # 16 Exhibit J Part 13, # 17 Exhibit J Part 14, # 18
Exhibit J Part 15, # 19 Exhibit J Part 16, # 20 Exhibit J Part 17, # 21
Exhibit K Part 1, # 22 Exhibit K Part 2, # 23 Exhibit K Part 3, # 24 Exhibit
K Part 4, # 25 Exhibit K Part 5)(Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 05/29/2009)

06/19/2009

139

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to compel Production of
Documents (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4
Exhibit 4)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 16 of 22

06/19/2009

140

NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion to
compel 139 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 6/25/2009 at 09:00
AM. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009

141

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time to file
response/reply Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit 1)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009

142

NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file response/reply 141 before Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered:
06/19/2009)

06/19/2009

143

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file excess pages in
Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Local Rule
56.1(b)(3)(C) (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/19/2009

144

NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion for
leave to file excess pages 143 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
6/25/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2009)

06/23/2009

145

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion for
extension of time 141 to file response regarding motion by Defendants
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for summary judgment
135 is granted. Response due by 7/13/2009. Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for leave to file brief in excess pages 143 is granted.Mailed notice (tlp, )
(Entered: 06/23/2009)

06/24/2009

146

RESPONSE by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to
MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to compel Production of
Documents 139 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 06/24/2009)

06/24/2009

(Court only) ***Deadlines terminated. (hp, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

06/24/2009

(Court only) ***Deadlines terminated. (hp, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

06/24/2009

147

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to the Honorable
Morton Denlow. (See order for detail). Signed by Honorable Virginia M.
Kendall on 6/23/2009.(hp, ) (Entered: 06/26/2009)

06/29/2009

148

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Morton Denlow:This matter has been
referred to Judge Denlow for ruling on a pending motion. If no briefing
schedule has been set or if no briefing is desired, the parties are to notice
the motion up on Mondays or Wednesdays at 9:15 a.m. Judge Denlow
does not desire briefs on discovery disputes. Otherwise, the parties are to
appear for status or argument at 10:00 a.m. on 7/28/2009.Mailed notice
(dmk, ) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

07/06/2009

149

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Morton Denlow:Motion to compel
139 is withdrawn by agreement of the parties. All matters relating to the
referral of this action having been resolved, the case is returned to the
assigned judge. Case no longer referred to Honorable Morton Denlow.
Status hearing set for 7/28/09 is stricken.Mailed notice (dmk, ) (Entered:
07/06/2009)

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 17 of 22

07/13/2009

150

RESPONSE by David Grochocinskiin Opposition to MOTION by
Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given for
summary judgment On Their Unclean Hands Defenses 135 (Joyce,
Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/13/2009

151

RULE 56 1(b)(3)(A)-(B) Statement Plaintiff's Response to Defendants'
Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Their
Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Their Unclean Hands Defenses
(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/13/2009

152

RULE 56 (b)(3)(C) Statement in Support of His Response to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/13/2009

153

APPENDIX response in opposition to motion 150 Volume 1 of 3
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-9, # 2 Exhibit 10-20, # 3 Exhibit 21-32, # 4
Exhibit 33-50)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/13/2009

154

APPENDIX response in opposition to motion 150 Volume 2 (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit 51-63, # 2 Exhibit 64-66, # 3 Exhibit 67-78, # 4 Exhibit 79-84,
# 5 Exhibit 85-87)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/13/2009

155

APPENDIX response in opposition to motion 150 Volume 3 (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit 88-93, # 2 Exhibit 94, # 3 Exhibit 95-98, # 4 Exhibit 99-102, #
5 Exhibit 103-109)(Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 07/13/2009)

07/17/2009

156

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for extension of time to file response/reply as to response in
opposition to motion 150 , motion for summary judgment 135 and for
Leave to file Oversize Reply (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 07/17/2009)

07/17/2009

157

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for extension of time to file response/reply as to response in
opposition to motion 150 , motion for summary judgment 135 and for
Leave to File Oversize Reply -- Amended (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
07/17/2009)

07/17/2009

158

NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for
extension of time to file response/reply,, motion for relief,,, 157 before
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 8/3/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 07/17/2009)

07/17/2009

159

RESPONSE by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to Defendants Amended
Unoposed Motion for Extension of Time (Joyce, Edward) (Entered:
07/17/2009)

07/20/2009

160

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendants'
unopposed motions for an extension of time to 8/19/2009 to file a reply to
their motion for summary judgment and for leave to file a brief in excess of
15 pages are granted. The reply brief is limited to 20 pages.Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 07/20/2009)

08/04/2009

161

MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for leave to file excess pages (second) (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
08/04/2009)

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 18 of 22

08/04/2009

162

NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for
leave to file excess pages 161 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
8/11/2009 at 09:00 AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 08/04/2009)

08/05/2009

163

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Defendants'
motion for leave to file a 25 page reply brief 161 is granted.Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 08/05/2009)

08/19/2009

164

REPLY by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Given to
MOTION by Defendants Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B
Given for summary judgment On Their Unclean Hands Defenses 135
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
08/19/2009)

08/19/2009

165

RULE 56 56.1(a) Statement by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald
B Given regarding motion for summary judgment 135 Reply to Plaintiff's
Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) Statement in Support of His Response to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 08/19/2009)

08/25/2009

166

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file Sur-Reply to
Defendants' Three New Arguments or, Alternatively, to Open Merits
Discovery for a Limited Purpose (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

08/25/2009

167

NOTICE of Motion by Edward T. Joyce for presentment of motion for
leave to file 166 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 9/3/2009 at
09:00 AM. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

08/27/2009

168

RESPONSE by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP, Ronald B Givenin
Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file
Sur-Reply to Defendants' Three New Arguments or, Alternatively, to Open
Merits Discovery for a Limited Purpose 166 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
08/27/2009)

08/31/2009

169

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:The Court has
sufficient briefing from the parties on the motion and no further briefing is
permitted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply 166 is denied.
Mailed notice (jms, ) (Entered: 08/31/2009)

03/31/2010

170

MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Pursuant to
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered this day, defendants' motion for
summary judgment 135 is granted. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice
(jms, ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)

03/31/2010

171

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia
M. Kendall on 3/31/2010:Mailed notice(jms, ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)

03/31/2010

172

ENTERED JUDGMENT on 3/31/2010:Mailed notice(jms, ) (Entered:
03/31/2010)

04/28/2010

173

MOTION by Movant Gerard Spehar to Intervene (hp, ) (Entered:
04/29/2010)

04/28/2010

174

MOTION by Movant Gerard Spehar to alter judgment or amend by
Movant Gerard Spehar (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1 thru E,

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 19 of 22

# 2 Attachment 2 - Affidavit F thru Decl. B, # 3 Attachment 3 - Decl. C
thru Exhibit 2 Motion, # 4 Attachment 4 - Exhibit 3 Motion thru 4 Motion,
# 5 Attachment 5 - Exhibit 4 Motion - Part 2, # 6 Atttachment 6 - Exhibit J
& OL) (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File). (hp, ) (Entered:
04/29/2010)
04/29/2010

175

NOTICE of appeal by David Grochocinski regarding orders 171 , 172
Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0752-4767406. (Joyce, Edward) (Entered:
04/29/2010)

04/29/2010

176

MOTION by Defendants Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw
LLP for sanctions (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 04/29/2010)

04/29/2010

177

MEMORANDUM by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
in support of motion for sanctions 176 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
04/29/2010)

04/29/2010

178

NOTICE of Motion by Stephen Novack for presentment of motion for
sanctions 176 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 5/6/2010 at 09:00
AM. (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 04/29/2010)

04/30/2010

179

NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record. (gej, ) (Entered:
04/30/2010)

04/30/2010

180

TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on notice of appeal
175 . Notified counsel (gej, ) (Entered: 04/30/2010)

04/30/2010

181

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal regarding
notice of appeal 175 ; USCA Case No. 10-2057 (hp, ) (Entered:
05/03/2010)

05/04/2010

182

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for leave to file Appearance
(Attachments: # 1 Appearance)(Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/04/2010)

05/04/2010

183

NOTICE of Motion by David Edward Morgans for presentment of motion
for leave to file 182 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 5/10/2010 at
09:00 AM. (Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/04/2010)

05/04/2010

184

LIMITED RATIFICATION of Ronald Holman. (hp, ) (Entered:
05/05/2010)

05/06/2010

(Court only) ***Deadlines terminated. (hp, ) (Entered: 05/13/2010)

05/07/2010

185

ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff David Grochocinski by David
Edward Morgans (Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/07/2010)

05/07/2010

186

NOTICE by David Grochocinski OF FILING re 185 (Morgans, David)
Modified on 5/10/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 05/07/2010)

05/07/2010

187

MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion hearing
held. Motion of attorney David E. Morgans for leave to file his appearance
on behalf of plaintiff 182 is granted. Briefing as to motion by movant
Gerard Spehar to intervene 173 is set as follows: Response due by
5/27/2010; reply due by 6/10/2010. Briefing as to motion by defendants
Ronald B. Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP for sanctions 176 is set

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 20 of 22

as follows: Response due by 6/3/2010; reply due by 6/24/2010. Leave is
granted to file response and reply briefs in excess of that page limit, up to
20 pages. Rulings by mail. Motion by movant Gerard Spehar to alter
judgment [174} is entered and continued until the Court determines
whether he will be allowed to intervene. Mailed (vmj, ) (Entered:
05/10/2010)
05/07/2010

(Court only) Set Deadlines as to MOTION by Defendants Ronald B Given,
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP for sanctions 176 . Responses due by
6/3/2010 Replies due by 6/24/2010. (vmj, ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

05/12/2010

188

REQUEST by Plaintiff to Clerk of the District Court for Inclusion of
Certain Briefs and Memoranda in Record on Appeal Pursuant to Circuit
Ruile 10(a) by David Grochocinski (Joyce, Edward) (Test Modified on by
the Clerk's Office 5/13/2010). (hp, ). (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/12/2010

190

SEVENTH CIRCUIT transcript information sheet by David Grochocinski
(Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on File.) (hp, ) Modified on
6/16/2010 (hp, ). (Entered: 05/14/2010)

05/12/2010

191

SEVENTH CIRCUIT transcript information sheet, for Magistrate Denlow
by David Grochocinski (hp, ) (Poor Quality Original - Paper Document on
File.) Modified on 6/16/2010 (hp, ). (Entered: 05/14/2010)

05/13/2010

189

DESIGNATION by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP of
record on appeal : USCA Case No. 10-2057 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered:
05/13/2010)

05/13/2010

192

COPY of order dated 5/13/2010 from the USCA for the Seventh Circuit
regarding notice of appeal 175 ; Appellate case no. : 10-2057. Upon
consideration of the Appellant's Motion to stay appeal, filed on May 10,
2010, by counsel for the appellant,IT IS ORDERED that the motion is
GRANTED. Proceedings in this appeal shall be held in abeyance pending
resolution by the district court of the pending motion to intervene.
Appellant is ORDERED to file a status report with this court by July 9,
2010 or within 10 days of the district courts resolution of the motion to
intervene. (hp, ) (Entered: 05/14/2010)

05/17/2010

193

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction (Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/17/2010)

05/17/2010

194

NOTICE of Motion by David Edward Morgans for presentment of motion
to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction 193 before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall
on 5/20/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/17/2010)

05/17/2010

195

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DAVID
GROCHOCINSKI'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS (Morgans, David) (Entered: 05/17/2010)

05/17/2010

196

NOTICE by David Grochocinski OF FILING (Morgans, David) (Entered:
05/17/2010)

05/18/2010

197

TRANSMITTED to the USCA for the 7th Circuit the long record on
appeal 175 (USCA no. 10-2057). (gej, ) (Entered: 05/18/2010)

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 21 of 22

05/18/2010

198

USCA RECEIVED on 5/18/2010 the long record regarding notice of
appeal 175 . (gej, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)

05/20/2010

199

MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Motion hearing
held. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction 193 is taken under
advisement. Responses are to be filed by 6/3/2010. Replies are to be filed
by 6/10/2010. Court will by mail. Briefing on the motion for sanctions is
stayed pending disposition of plaintiff's motion to dismiss.Advised in open
court (jms, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)

05/27/2010

200

RESPONSE by Defendants in Opposition to R. Gerard Spehar Motion to
intervene 173 (hp, ) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

06/03/2010

201

RESPONSE by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLPin
Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction 193 (Novack, Stephen) (Entered: 06/03/2010)

06/10/2010

202

REPLY Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss defendants'
motion for sanctions by David Grochocinski 193 (Morgans, David)
Modified on 6/11/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 06/10/2010)

06/10/2010

203

NOTICE of filing by David Grochocinski re 202 (Morgans, David)
Modified on 6/11/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 06/10/2010)

06/10/2010

204

SUPPLEMENT to Spehar motion to alter or amend by Gerry Spehar (Poor
Quality Original - Paper Document on File) (vmj, ) (Entered: 06/11/2010)

06/10/2010

205

REPLY by Movant Gerard Spehar in support of his motion to intervene
173 (Exhibits). (hp, ) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

06/14/2010

206

LETTER to Judge Kendall dated 6/14/2010 by Ronald B Given, Mayer
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Appellate Docket &
Order Granting Stay)(Novack, Stephen) (Text Edited by Clerks Office on
6/15/2010) (hp, ). (Entered: 06/14/2010)

06/25/2010

208

LETTER to Judge Kendall dated 6/24/2010 from pro se movant R. Gerard
Spehar (Exhibits) re 173 , 193 . (hp, ) (Entered: 06/29/2010)

06/28/2010

207

Letter by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP (Novack,
Stephen) (Entered: 06/28/2010)

07/26/2010

209

AFFIDAVIT of Ronald Holman to Supplement Previously filed Limited
Ratification (Exhibit). (hp, ) (Entered: 07/27/2010)

08/13/2010

210

LETTER from R. Gerard Spehar dated 8/13/2010. (vmj, ) (Entered:
08/17/2010)

08/18/2010

211

LETTER to Judge Kendall by Ronald B Given, Mayer Brown Rowe &
Maw LLP dated 8/18/2010 (Novack, Stephen) (Text Modified by Clerk's
Office on 8/19/2010). (hp, ). (Entered: 08/18/2010)

08/20/2010

212

LETTER to Judge Kendall from Pro Se Movant R. Gerard Spehar dated
8/20/2010. (hp, ) (Entered: 08/26/2010)

02/03/2011

213

MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall:Enter

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

Page 22 of 22

MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth
above, the Court denies Spehars Motion to Intervene and Dismisses his
Motion to Alter or Amend as moot. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered:
02/03/2011)
02/03/2011

214

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia
M. Kendall on 2/3/2011.(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/03/2011)

02/14/2011

215

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on
2/14/2011: The Court denies Grochocinskis Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction. Grochocinski shall respond to the Defendants Motion for
Sanctions by February 28, 2011, and the Defendants shall reply by March
7, 2011. Entered by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 2/14/2011.
Mailed notice(tsa, ) (Entered: 02/14/2011)

02/16/2011

216

MOTION by Plaintiff David Grochocinski for extension of time to file
response/reply (Morgans, David) (Entered: 02/16/2011)

02/16/2011

217

NOTICE of Motion by David Edward Morgans for presentment of motion
for extension of time to file response/reply 216 before Honorable Virginia
M. Kendall on 2/22/2011 at 09:00 AM. (Morgans, David) (Entered:
02/16/2011)

02/16/2011

218

NOTICE of appeal by Gerard Spehar regarding orders 214 , 213 . (Fee
Due) (gel, ) (Entered: 02/17/2011)

02/17/2011

219

NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record. (gel, ) (Entered:
02/17/2011)

https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?372820562111538-L_452_0-1

2/17/2011