Clarke v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 43

AMENDMENT to 9/20/11 Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/23/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CONNIE CLARKE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

No.

10 C 7145

AMENDMENT TO SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 ORDER
On September 20, 2011 this Court, in compliance with the
teaching of Lee v. Cook County, 635 F.3d 969, 971 (7th Cir.
2011), ordered the severance of each of the named parties
plaintiff other than Connie Clarke, with each of the severed
parties then to become a plaintiff in her individual action with
a separate docket number.

This memorandum order will amend the

September 20 order (“Order”) to clarify some of the aspects
applicable to the severed plaintiffs.
Because severance under Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 21 results
in independent actions (see 4 Moore’s Federal Practice
§21.06[1](2011 ed.)), the subject of filing fees payable in
connection with those actions needs to be addressed.

In this

Court’s view that subject should be dealt with in exactly the
same fashion as if the now-severed plaintiffs had instituted
separate actions to begin with.

Were that not the case, each of

the 24 original plaintiffs would gain her ticket of entry to the
federal courts at a bargain basement price of less than $15.

There is no rational predicate for permitting parties to
hook up as plaintiffs under the liberal reading of Rule 20(a)(1)
taught by Lee and to piggyback onto payment of a single $350
filing fee even though severance is clearly called for.

It is

scarcely necessary to elaborate on the potential for abuse if
that were the operative rule.

Indeed, a $350-per-case

requirement is fully consonant with the dictate of 28 U.S.C.
§1914(a).
That filing fee requirement points up the procedural
awkwardness for the Clerk’s Office if the provisions of Order ¶3
that appear to call for a current opening of all of the cases
with separate docket numbers were to be followed literally.
Instead this Court orders that for Clerk’s Office procedural
purposes the filing of each severed plaintiff’s action will be
treated as having taken place at the time that she files her
amended complaint as provided in Order ¶6, together with her
payment of the filing fee or, if appropriate, a completed
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
All other provisions of the Order--the effective filing date
of July 28, 2011 specified in Order ¶3’s second sentence, the
filing directions as to each docketed action provided for in
Order ¶4, the method of assignment of the separate cases to
judges of this District Court provided for in Order ¶5 and the
timetable for filing the separate actions prescribed in

2

Order ¶6--remain in full effect.

If any of the severed

plaintiffs does not file her amended complaint within the time
specified in Order ¶6, she will be deemed to have elected not to
proceed with the claim set out in the First Amended Complaint.

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

September 23, 2011

3