McCarrell et al v. Wirtz Beverage Illinois, LLC et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/9/2010:MAiled notice(srn, )

McCarrell et al v. Wirtz Beverage Illinois, LLC et al

Doc. 42

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CRAIG MCCARRELL, et al., Plaintiff, v. WIRTZ BEVERAGE ILLINOIS, LLC, etc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.

10 C 1530

MEMORANDUM On April 13, 2010 Wirtz Beverage Illinois, LLC ("Wirtz") filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) motion (Dkt. 19) and supporting memorandum (Dkt. 22), to be presented on April 16, in which motion Wirtz sought to dismiss the then-existing Complaint that had been brought against Wirtz and Glazer's Distributors of Illinois, Inc. ("Glazer's") by a trio of plaintiffs. Because

this Court found that linking Wirtz and Glazer's in the same employment discrimination action was inappropriate, on May 11 it directed that plaintiffs' claims be asserted in two separate lawsuits, and on June 2 the same plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint ("AC")(Dkt. 34) against Wirtz alone. As a further step toward unscrambling the ill-conceived initial Complaint, on June 7 this Court entered a minute order (Dkt. 37) that in part denied the Rule 12(b)(6) motion without prejudice. Although Wirtz has not since renewed its earlier

motion as to the now-extant AC, counsel for Nathaniel Chavis, Jr. (one of the three plaintiffs) has just filed what he labels

Dockets.Justia.com

"Response to Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss."

Even

though the situation is thus reminiscent of the old Johnny Carson "Carnac the Magnificent" routine ("Here's the answer. What's the

question?"), this Court will take no action on the asserted Response unless and until Wirtz's counsel converts it into a live matter by refiling a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (if counsel deems that appropriate).

________________________________________ Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge Date: July 9, 2010

2