Personal PAC et al v. McGuffage et al

Filing 45

MOTION by Plaintiffs Marcena W. Love, Grace Allen Newton, Personal PAC for judgment Unopposed Motion for Entry of Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Berger White, Juliet)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
PERSONAL PAC, an Illinois not for profit
corporation, MARCENA W. LOVE,
GRACE ALLEN NEWTON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM M. MCGUFFAGE, Chairman of
the Illinois State Board of Elections;
JESSE R. SMART, Vice Chairman of the
Illinois State Board of Elections;
HAROLD D. BYERS, Member of the
Illinois State Board of Elections;
BETTY J. COFFRIN, Member of the
Illinois State Board of Elections;
ERNEST L. GOWEN, Member of the
Illinois State Board of Elections;
JUDITH C. RICE, Member of the
Illinois State Board of Elections;
BRYAN A. SCHNEIDER, Member of the
Illinois State Board of Elections; and
CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, Member of the
Illinois State Board of Elections, all in
their official capacities,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Judge Marvin E. Aspen
) Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan
)
) No. 12 CV 1043
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED ORDER AND
CONSENT JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Personal PAC, Marcena W. Love, and Grace Allen Newton
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys, move this Court pursuant to Rule
54(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to approve the parties’ proposed
settlement of attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs in the above-captioned case. In

addition, the parties’ proposed settlement includes taxable costs sought by the
Plaintiffs on April 3, 2012. See Dkt. # 41. Plaintiffs have attached a proposed
Consent Order, reflecting the terms of the parties’ settlement. See Ex. A
(“Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment”).
In further support of this Motion, the parties state as follows:
1.

On February 14, 2012, Plaintiffs commenced this case by filing a

complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants McGuffage,
Smart, Byers, Coffrin, Gowen, Rice, Schneider, and Scholz (“Action”). At the same
time, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, or, in the
alternative, for expedited permanent injunctive relief, requesting that the Court
enjoin Defendants from enforcing both: (a) 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d), as applied to funds
raised, maintained, and spent for the purpose of independent expenditures; and (b)
the prohibition, contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d), against the establishment or
maintenance of more than one political action committee (“PAC”), by any natural
person, trust, partnership, committee, association, corporation, or other
organization or group of persons, to the extent it prohibits the formation of an
additional PAC created solely with funds raised, maintained, and spent solely for
the purpose of independent expenditures.
2.

On March 13, 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and

Order, granting Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited permanent injunctive relief. Dkt.
#39. Specifically, the Court ordered that “Defendants not enforce the contribution
limits set forth in the first sentence of 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d), as applied to

2

contributions to any independent-expenditure-only PACS.” The Court further
ordered that “Defendants not enforce the prohibition against the establishment or
maintenance of more than one PAC contained in the first sentence of 10 ILCS 5/92(d), as applied to the establishment or maintenance of independent-expenditureonly PACs.” Memorandum Opinion & Order at 13, Dkt. #39.
3.

The Court entered judgment on March 13, 2012. Dkt. 40. Defendants

did not appeal that judgment.
4.

Plaintiffs are “prevailing parties” entitled to attorneys’ fees and

nontaxable costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to
taxable costs and, as a result, filed a bill of costs in the amount of $350 on April 3,
2012; Dkt. 41.
5.

The parties have reached a settlement of the Plaintiffs’ claim for

attorneys’ fees and costs in this case and have memorialized their agreement in the
attached Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment. Ex. A.
6.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter the Stipulated Order and Consent

Judgment and retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enforcing the terms of the
Order. See Kokkenen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994).
7.

On June 18, 2012, Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiffs’ counsel

that Defendants do not oppose this motion.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Plaintiffs ask this Court to
enter the Order attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3

Dated: June 19, 2012
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Juliet Berger-White
Matthew J. Piers
Joshua Karsh
Juliet Berger-White
HUGHES SOCOL PIERS
RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
70 W. Madison, Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
312.580.0100

4