Peraica v. McCook, Vlg of et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 2/24/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY PERAICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
VILLAGE OF McCOOK, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

10 C 7040

MEMORANDUM ORDER
In response to this Court’s January 18, 2012 oral ruling
that struck without prejudice all affirmative defenses (“ADs”)
that had been advanced by Village of Stickney’s Deputy Chief of
Police Frank Figueroa, its Police Officer Lochridge and its
Auxiliary Police Officer Kernell (collectively “Stickney
Defendants”), Stickney Defendants have now tendered a set of
amended ADs to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) brought
against them and other defendants by Anthony Peraica (“Peraica”).
This memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of a question
raised by the first of those ADs.
AD 1 invokes, as to all of Peraica’s state law claims, the
portion of the Illinois Governmental and Governmental Employees’
Tort Immunity Act that specifies a one-year limitations period.
According to AD 1 ¶2:
Officer Lochridge and Auxiliary Officer Kernell’s only
contact with the subject vehicle from which Plaintiff
was later arrested by another police agency in this
case occurred on October 30, 2010. Further, the only
communication that Officer Lochridge had with the
McCook police about the subject vehicle took place on

October 30, 2010. Finally, the McCook Defendants
traffic stop of the subject vehicle took place on
October 30, 2010.
Because the FAC that first named Stickney Defendants as targets
in this action was not filed until October 31, 2011, those
defendants contend that all state law claims against them are
barred by limitations.
That position, however, seems to be at odds with FAC ¶57,
which contains the first reference to Stickney Defendants and
charges that they “wrote false reports and false police reports
and fabricated information in an effort to cover up the false
arrest of Plaintiff” after he had been arrested and held in
custody by Village of McCook Police Department personnel on the
October 30 date.

There is no identification of when those

asserted events took place, so that at a minimum the matter is
rendered ambiguous by the omission of a date or dates from FAC
¶57.
If the charged conduct by Stickney Defendants was indeed
confined to the October 30 date, their counsel should move for
dismissal of the state law charges against them.

If such is not

the case, it would appear that AD 1 may be a candidate for
rejection.

This Court will await further input from the

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

February 24, 2012
2