Villanueva v. Village Discount Outlet, Inc.

Filing 127

SUPPLEMENT to Memorandum Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 11/2/2009:Mailed notice(srn, ) Modified on 11/3/2009 (vmj, ).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GLORIA VILLANUEVA, Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE DISCOUNT OUTLET, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 07 C 4626 SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Gloria Villanueva's counsel has moved that this Court reconsider the adverse summary judgment ruling in its October 28, 2009 memorandum opinion and order ("Opinion"). for one apologetic correction: That motion calls In writing the Opinion this Court had not recalled its earlier oral authorization to Villanueva's counsel to eschew strict compliance with this District Court's LR 56.1 requirements, so that the critical comment on that score at Opinion 2-3 was not appropriate. But as Opinion 3-4 made clear, that oversight made no difference at all in the outcome, because the entire Opinion expressly credited all admissible evidence that Villanueva's counsel had tendered, as well as drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor. As to the substance of the motion, however, if Villanueva's counsel did indeed misunderstand the posture of the case before the Opinion was issued, that mistake must be laid at counsel's doorstep. In fact, promptly after Villanueva's summary judgment response had been filed in early June 2009, this Court conducted its previously-scheduled June 10 status hearing1 and ordered a reply within 14 days. in this fashion: THE COURT: Okay. Again, what kind of time frame would you need for the reply? MR. HANSEN [Village Discount's counsel]: Your Honor, with respect to the issues that you raised, if I could have 14 days. THE COURT: Okay. I will give that to you. So that means June 24th. And then I am not setting any further schedule because, as you know, once the thing is fully briefed, I will only -- people of a certain age will remember when you say when the cream rises to the top, which is no longer relevant, we will get at it as soon as it reaches its position and priority list. Okay? MR. SIEDLECKI [Villanueva's counsel]: THE COURT: MR. HANSEN: Thank you very much. Thank you, your Honor. Once the reply was in hand, If Villanueva's counsel Yes, Judge. It concluded that June 10 status hearing There was no ambiguity there: the motion was viewed as fully briefed. then had any reservations as to the motion being fully ripe for decision, counsel was entirely free to raise those reservations at any time thereafter. Instead silence descended, and when some That practice of setting a one-two schedule promptly, followed by a status hearing to see whether a reply is needed, rather than setting an automatic one-two-three sequence, is intended to see (1) whether the response (the number two brief) has identified a genuine issue of material fact, in which event no reply can undo the factual dispute and thus sustain summary judgment, or (2) whether the first two submissions have met headon so as to obviate any need for a reply. 2 1 4-1/2 months later the cream had indeed risen to the top (that is, the motion had reached the stage of first priority among matters awaiting decision by this Court), the Opinion was issued. In short, no valid ground for reconsideration has been proffered (see, e.g., Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Villanueva's motion is denied. Hence ________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: November 2, 2009 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?