Khatib v. Chicago Sun Times

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/14/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

Khatib v. Chicago Sun Times

Doc. 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
HAMIN KHATIB,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

10 C 3979

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Just two days after pro se plaintiff Hamin Khatib (“Khatib”)
submitted an extraordinarily bulky filing charging the Chicago
Sun-Times (“Sun-Times”) with copyright infringement,1 this Court
issued a two-page June 30, 2010 memorandum order that raised some
questions as to Khatib’s claim but deferred any resolution of the
issues until after the initial status hearing to be held on
September 1, 2010.

Because Khatib did not obtain service on the

Sun-Times until late August 2010, however, that initial status
date was then reset to a late October 2010 date.
But before that hearing took place, counsel for the SunTimes came forward with a showing that it and various of its
affiliates were in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the
District of Delaware.

Accordingly this Court issued a brief

1

Only a bit over five pages make up the narrative (which
more closely resembles a short story than a court pleading) that
Khatib labels as his “Complaint,” while the rest of Khatib’s
half-inch-thick submission comprised what the memorandum order
next referred to in the text described as “125 pages of
miscellany.”

Dockets.Justia.com

September 16, 2010 memorandum order that confirmed the mandatory
automatic stay (see 11 U.S.C. §362(a)) and apprised Khatib of the
choices available to him under the circumstances, including the
filing of an adversary complaint in the Delaware Bankruptcy
Court.

This lawsuit has since lain dormant because of the

automatic stay, but Khatib did file an Adversary Complaint in the
Bankruptcy Court that advanced the same copyright infringement
claim that he had asserted in his Complaint here, as well as a
good many other claims.
So much for background.

Now Khatib has tendered what he

labels as his “Motion for Continuance,” this time stating that he
has sought to obtain patent protection through a June 18, 2013
filing of a patent application.

But that submission to this

Court, even apart from its violation of the automatic bankruptcy
stay, has carried with it the death warrant for this action, for
Khatib’s second attachment to the motion is a copy of the
detailed April 3, 2013 opinion of Delaware Bankruptcy Judge
Christopher Sontchi (“Opinion”) that dismissed his adversary
proceeding with prejudice in its entirety.
Importantly, Opinion at 2 describes Khatib’s claims in his
Adversary Complaint as charging “copyright infringement, patent
infringement, unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation,
unjust enrichment and other various common law claims related to
an Iqraa Front-Backpack designed by Plaintiff” Khatib.

2

That

laundry list embraces all claims and prospective claims advanced
or sought to be advanced by Khatib in this lawsuit.

Hence the

Opinion’s decision dooms this action as a matter of claim
preclusion.
Conclusion
Khatib has chosen his forum for the active pursuit of his
claims against the Sun-Times, and he has struck out.

Claim

preclusion bars any second attempt to pursue those claims in this
District Court.

Accordingly this action is dismissed with

prejudice.2
________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

August 14, 2013

2

This ruling calls for the denial on mootness grounds of
Khatib’s oddly-framed current Motion for Continuance. This Court
so orders.
3