Yates v. Georgian Terrace Hotel, The et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/15/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
FRANCINE YATES,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGIAN TERRACE HOTEL,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

11 C 5053

MEMORANDUM
Two memorandum orders issued by this Court (Order I dated
July 28, 2011 and Order II dated August 11) characterized the
self-prepared Complaint submitted by Francine Yates (“Yates”) as
frivolous in the legal sense, with Order II reconfirming that
Yates must pay the $350 filing fee by August 25 on pain of
dismissal of this action if she were not to do so.

But later on

the same August 11 day that Order II was issued, this Court
received in chambers the Judge’s Copy of an Amended Complaint
(“AC”) filed by Yates.

Because that document is just as

frivolous, and because Yates has obviously not gotten the
message, some elaboration of that characterization may be
appropriate.
To begin with, all of Yates’ claimed grievances (save
perhaps one) are Georgia-based, and she cannot of course sue the
three Georgia defendants--the Georgian Terrace Hotel, the city of
Atlanta and the State of Georgia--in this judicial district on
that account.

In that regard Yates’ AC ¶3 allegation as to venue

(“Venue is placed in this district because this district is where
the related events listed below occurred and it is where the
defendants reside”) is just a flat-out lie.
As to the next-named defendant, Bank of America, it may be
generally amenable to suit here, but whatever allegations Yates
may have against it are also solely Atlanta-based.

Before going

further, this memorandum notes that Yates’ repetitious assertions
of “fraud” deprive that term of any meaningful content.

Any

objective reader of Yates’ 24-page, 95-paragraph pleading has to
conclude that she has instead confirmed Alexander Pope’s aphorism
that “All looks yellow to the jaundic’d eye.”
As to the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois,1 Yates
refers to them frequently, but without saying a single word as to
what either has assertedly done to her that could conceivably
support liability on their part.

As to them, “frivolous” is

really a major understatement.
Finally, as to American Airlines, Yates’ allegations in AC
¶¶27-29 throw around the same empty label of “fraud” and cannot
support federal subject matter jurisdiction in any event, while
AC ¶¶30-32 are trivial at best.

Again the label “frivolous”

applies in its common-sense meaning as well as its legal sense.

1

As for the latter, even apart from what is said next in
the text, the Supreme Court’s application of the Eleventh
Amendment of the Constitution confirms the State’s nonsuability,
and the same is true as to the State of Georgia under the literal
language of that Eleventh Amendment.
2

In sum, nothing in the AC calls for any modification of what
was said in Order I and Order II.

Indeed, it is scarcely

surprising that this Court’s minute clerk, having conducted a
brief computer search at this Court’s request, uncovered what
appear to be nearly 20 other lawsuits that Yates has brought
during the years from 2008 forward.

It seems likely that she has

been fortunate to escape the imposition of sanctions under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11 or an order from the District Court’s Executive
Committee restricting her from further filings, or both.

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

August 15, 2011

3