Montgomery v. America's Servicing Company

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/23/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BETTIE MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY,
Defendant.

No.

11 C 9196

MEMORANDUM ORDER
After some false starts, attorney Sidney Smith, who had
really prepared the Complaint filed by nominally pro se plaintiff
Bettie Montgomery (“Montgomery”), finally filed an appearance on
Montgomery’s behalf along with a motion seeking more time to file
a new version of the Complaint that would conform to the
directives of Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8.

This Court granted

that motion, with the amended pleading due on or before May 8 and
the next status hearing scheduled for May 14.
But it is painfully obvious that attorney Smith is
unfamiliar with practice in this District Court (and perhaps
federal courts generally).

For example, at the status hearing

earlier this week he asked for leave to file an “oversize brief”
on the mistaken assumption that this District Court’s LR 7.1,
which does impose such a limitation in the course of briefing
contested motions, somehow cabins pleadings such as complaints.1

1

That said, this Court hopes that the mistaken motion does
not presage still another needlessly prolix version of
Montgomery’s Complaint.

But what prompts this memorandum order is attorney Smith’s
April 16 filing, the Judge’s Copy of which has been delivered to
this Court’s chambers, of some 120 pages of evidentiary material
that play no proper role at all in the federal pleading process.
Hence all of Dkt. Nos. 23-1, 23-2 and 23-3 are stricken from the
file.

Attorney Smith is expected to familiarize himself promptly

with the standards applicable to practice in federal courts
generally, and in this District Court particularly.

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

April 23, 2012

2