Wallace v. Sports Authority and TSA Stores Inc. et al
WRITTEN Opinion signed by the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras on 1/10/2012: Defendant's motion (Doc 16 ) to dismiss for lack of prosecution is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion (Doc 18 ) to reopen his case is denied without prejudice. Ruling set for 1/11/2012 is stricken. (For further details see minute order.) Mailed notice(sct, )
Order Form (01/2005)
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge
Charles P. Kocoras
11 C 4603
Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge
January 10, 2012
Wallace vs. Sports Authority
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
Defendants’ motion (Doc ) to dismiss for lack of prosecution is denied as moot. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc
) to reopen his case is denied without prejudice. Ruling set for 1/11/2012 is stricken.
O[ For further details see text below.]
Docketing to mail notices.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Wallace’s (“Wallace”) motion to reopen his case
and Defendant TSA Stores, Inc.’s (“TSA”) motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. For the reasons stated
below, TSA’s motion is denied as moot, and Wallace’s motion is denied without prejudice.
On May 18, 2011, Wallace filed suit against TSA in Illinois state court for injuries he sustained while
using a fitness resistance band in a Sports Authority store owned and operated by TSA. On July 7, 2011, TSA
removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The parties fully
briefed TSA’s motion to dismiss, which was granted on August 25, 2011. In its Order dismissing Wallace’s
complaint (the “Order of Dismissal”), the Court determined that Wallace failed to state a products liability claim.
The Court further noted that Wallace could not use statements in his brief to supplement his complaint, but that
“if [he] wishes to assert a product liability claim, he must amend the complaint.”
TSA subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. However, the Court had already
granted TSA’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on August 25, 2011. This dismissal resulted in a final
disposition of Wallace’s claim, and TSA’s motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution is therefore moot. See
United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396 (1980) (holding that a case is moot “when the
issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome” (internal
On October 20, 2011, Wallace filed an Amended Complaint and a motion to reopen the case. However,
Wallace does not cite to any rule or legal principle to support his motion. Rather, Wallace relies solely on the
Court’s statement in its Order of Dismissal that “if Wallace wishes to assert a product liability claim, he must
amend the complaint.” Wallace misinterprets this statement. The Court did not grant Wallace leave to amend
his complaint but only stated that Wallace could not supplement the allegations of his complaint through a brief
11C4603 W allace vs. Sports Authority
Page 1 of 2
and that an amended complaint would be the proper vehicle for him to do so. Wallace failed to request either
leave to amend his complaint or any other relief from the Court’s Order of Dismissal. Because Wallace has not
provided the Court with any other grounds upon which he bases his motion to reopen the case, his motion is
denied without prejudice, in light of the apparent misinterpretation of our Order of Dismissal.
In light of the foregoing, TSA’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is denied as moot, and
Wallace’s motion to reopen his case is denied without prejudice.
Date: January 10, 2012
CHARLES P. KOCORAS
U.S. District Judge
11C4603 W allace vs. Sports Authority
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?