Cooper et al v. Daley et al

Filing 399

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 1/22/2013: Before the Court are Defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) 344 and Defendants motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pur suant to Rule 50(b) or, in the alternative, fora new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a) or remittitur 364 . Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to reopen Monell discovery 352 and Defendant City of Chicago's motion to bar the Monell cla im for lack of jurisdiction 360 . For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Rule 50(a) motion 344 is denied as moot and the Monell motions [352, 360] are stricken as moot. The parties are directed to submit to the Courts Proposed Order Box a clean copy of the agreed certification resolving Plaintiffs' Monell claim [see 360, 386, 392]. The parties are also directed to amend their Rule 50(b) motion 364 and response 372 to include citations to the trial transcript. If the pertinent transcripts have not yet been obtained, the parties are to consult with the Court Reporter and submit no later than 2/1/2013 a proposed schedule for submitting the briefs with citations to the trial transcript. Mailed notice(tbk, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

07 C 2144

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

1/22/2013

Cooper, et al. vs. Dailey, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Before the Court are Defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(a) [344] and
Defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Rule 50(b) or, in the alternative, for
a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a) or remittitur [364]. Also before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to reopen
Monell discovery [352] and Defendant City of Chicago’s motion to bar the Monell claim for lack of jurisdiction
[360]. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion [344] is denied as moot and the Monell
motions [352, 360] are stricken as moot. The parties are directed to submit to the Court’s Proposed Order Box
a clean copy of the agreed certification resolving Plaintiffs’ Monell claim [see 360, 386, 392]. The parties are
also directed to amend their Rule 50(b) motion [364] and response [372] to include citations to the trial transcript.
If the pertinent transcripts have not yet been obtained, the parties are to consult with the Court Reporter and
submit no later than 2/1/2013 a proposed schedule for submitting the briefs with citations to the trial transcript.
O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
At the end of Plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule
50(a) [344]. The Court took Defendants’ motion under advisement. Soon thereafter, the jury returned its
verdict and Defendants timely filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Rule 50(b)
[364]. The jury’s verdict and Defendants’ Rule 50(b) motion have rendered Defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion
[344] moot. See, e.g., Jackson v. Pfeiffer, 2006 WL 3488844, at *1 n. 1.
As to the renewed motion [364], Defendants’ have submitted their motion and supporting memorandum
without citations to the pertinent portions of the trial transcript and without including the trial transcript as an
attachment to the motion. Those omissions make it extremely difficult, if not impossible for the Court to
assess the motion’s merit. See Cobige v. City of Chicago, 752 F. Supp. 2d 860, 863 n. 1 (N.D. Ill. 2010);
O’Sullivan v. City of Chicago, 2007 WL 671040, at *3 n. 1 (N.D. Ill. March 1, 2007) (citing Byrd v. Illinois
Dept. of Public Health, 423 F.3d 696, 700 (7th Cir. 2005) (noting the benefit of trial transcript in evaluation
of a motion for judgment as a matter of law); Petit v. City of Chicago, 239 F. Supp. 2d 761, 770 (N.D. Ill.
2002) (noting benefit of careful consideration of Rule 50 motions with the benefit of trial transcripts); Spina
v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook County, 207 F. Supp. 2d 764, 769 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (criticizing failure of
movant for new trial to cite to relevant portions of trial transcript)). In response to Defendants’ motion [372],
Plaintiffs stated that “Defendants failed to attach any transcripts and appeared to reference most facts by
memory. Plaintiffs will do the same.” The absence of citations to the trial transcripts is remarkably
unhelpful. The parties must amend their post-trial submissions to include citations to the trial transcript
pursuant to the instructions set forth in the Docket Entry Text above.
07C2144 Cooper, et al. Vs. Dailey, et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
The parties have reached an agreement that resolves Plaintiffs’ Monell claim [see 360, 386, 392]. Defendant
City of Chicago proposed an agreement titled “Certification of Entry of Judgment Against Defendant City of
Chicago” [360-1, ex. A]. Plaintiffs responded that they “will accept Defendant City’s offer to certify an entry
of judgment with the edits suggested below” [386]. In reply, Defendant City of Chicago “accept[ed]
plaintiff’s offer to accept the stipulation [with Plaintiffs’ proposed changes]” [392]. The Court directs the
parties to submit by 2/1/2013 to the Court’s Proposed Order Box a clean copy of the agreement. In light of
that agreement, the pending Monell motions [352, 360] are stricken as moot.

07C2144 Cooper, et al. Vs. Dailey, et al.

Page 2 of 2