Wade v. City of Chicago et al

Filing 252

MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for judgment or alternatively to dismiss (Platt, Thomas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DANIELLE WADE,

)

Plaintiff,

)
)

No. 08 C 3063

)
)

vs.

CITY OF CHICAGO, et aI.,
Defendants.

JUDGE PALLMEYER

)
)
)
)

Magistrate Judge Nolan

CITY OF CHICAGO'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
NUNC PRO TUNC OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO DISMISS MONELL CLAIM
Defendant City of Chicago, ("City") by its attorney, Mara S. Georges,
Corporation Counsel of

the City of

Chicago, by Thomas J. Platt and Bhairav Radia,

Assistants Corporation Counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 requests

entry of judgment in its favor on all claims remaining in this case, nunc pro tunc as of
May 9, 2011 or, alternatively, to dismiss the Monell claim, stating as follows:
1. Plaintiff

Danielle Wade alleged claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 for violation of

her constitutional rights and claims under Ilinois law for malicious prosecution. In Count
III of

the complaint, plaintiff

pled a Monell against the City alleging that ilegal customs,

policies and widespread practices of the City caused the deprivation of plaintiff s
constitutional rights.
2. On February 11,2011, this court denied, without prejudice, the City's

Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Count II, the Monell claim. (Docket #'s 105,
146).
3. On April 7, 2011, the court granted the City's Motion to Dismiss

"unkown officers" as defendants and granted the City's Motion to Bifurcate the Monell
claim from the trial which began May 2, 2011 against defendants Shamah and Doroniuk.

(Docket #214). On May 9, 2011 the jury returned a verdict for the defendants on all
claims. Judgment was entered on the jury verdict in favor of Defendants Shamah and
Doroniuk. (Docket # 249).
4. In light of

the jury verdict in favor of

the individual defendants, Defendant

City requests that judgment also be entered in its favor, nunc pro tunc. Based on the jury
verdict in favor of the defendants Shamah and Doroniuk on all claims, the City cannot be
liable in this case as a matter of law. See Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 796, 799 (1986) ("if

(plaintiffs) are unsuccessful in their claims against the individual defendants, they wil no
longer have a cause of action against the city."). Under the facts of

this case, the City

cannot be held liable because that finding would be inconsistent with the verdict entered
on behalf of

the individual defendants. See, Thomas v. Cook County Sherif 588 F.3d 445,

456 (7th Cir.2009).
5. Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 58 allows entry of

court denies all relief. FRCP 58(b)(1)(C). The court's entry of

judgment where the

judgment in favor of

Doroniuk and Shamah effectively denied all relief to plaintiff and ends this litigation.

Judgment should accordingly be entered in favor of City of Chicago.
6. Alternatively, City of Chicago requests dismissal of the Monell claim, with

prejudice, on grounds that verdict and judgment in favor of Doroniuk and Shamah
precludes the City's liability under Monel/.

WHEREFORE, defendant City of Chicago requests entry of judgment in its favor

and against plaintiff for all claims to be entered nunc pro tunc as of May 9, 2011, or

alternatively, to enter a dismissal order with prejudice as to defendant, City of Chicago.

MARA S. GEORGES
Corporation Counsel, City of Chicago
May

17,2011

By: IslThomas JPlatt
Thomas J Platt
Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel

IslBhairav Radia

Bhairav Radia
Assistant Corporation Counsel

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 900
Chicago, Ilinois 60602
[phone]/5106
Atty. Nos. 06181260/06293600