Readus v. Dercola et al

Filing 83

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Joan H. Lefkow on 3/1/2012: The City of Chicago's motion to reconsider 74 is denied. The City of Chicago is directed to answer Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint by 3/16/2012. Status hearing set for 3/27/2012 at 8:30 a.m.Mailed notice(mad, )

Order Form (01/2005)

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

Joan H. Lefkow

CASE NUMBER

09 C 4063

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

3/1/2012

Readus vs. Dercola, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The City of Chicago’s motion to reconsider [74] is denied. The City of Chicago is directed to answer Count
VI of the Second Amended Complaint by 3/16/2012. Status hearing set for 3/27/2012 at 8:30 a.m.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by judicial staff.

STATEMENT
Rule 15(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows the amendment of a claim or defense that arose out of the
occurrence set out in the original pleading. The City vigorously argues that a Monell claim based on a
municipality’s failure to train or supervise is entirely different from the excessive force incident the pro se
plaintiff alleges. This is not persuasive. The City’s failure to train or supervise, which must be assumed true
for purposes of addressing the pleadings, is readily identified as a cause of the excessive force alleged and, as
such, arises out of the same occurrence. Although the City is a separate party, where Corporation Counsel is
representing the individual officers and the City is bound by law to indemnify them if judgment is entered
against them, it has been a significant party in interest since the case was filed. Moreover, unless the plaintiff
can prove excessive force and injury inflicted by an officer, he cannot recover on a Monell claim based on a
policy of failure to supervise the officers, which indicates that the City and the officers are completely
aligned in their defense. Because of the identity of interest between the officers and the City, Rule
15(c)(1)(B) may be fairly read to allow relation back of an additional claim arising out of the same
occurrence and failure to name the City in the original pleading was a mistake of law.

09C4063 Readus vs. Dercola, et al.

Page 1 of 1