Munive v. Town of Cicero et al

Filing 349

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. The Court denies Cicero's motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, to certify interlocutory appeal or bifurcate 339 and Garrity's motion for leave to file a motion to bifurcate claims 345 . Defenda nts may file motions to bifurcate, if appropriate, after motions in limine are decided. The briefing schedule on Garrity's motion to bifurcate 347 is vacated. Signed by the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso on 1/25/2016. Notice mailed by judge's staff (ntf, )

`

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

WANDA COLON, as the Administrator
of the Estate of Cesar Munive,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF CICERO and CICERO
POLICE OFFICER DONALD
GARRITY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12 C 5481
Judge Jorge L. Alonso

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 19, 2015, the Court granted summary judgment to Cicero on plaintiff’s negligent
hiring claims on the grounds that §§ 2-201 and 2-109 of the Illinois Tort Immunity Act immunized
Cicero from those claims. (See generally 10/19/15 Mem. Op. & Order.) Plaintiff subsequently filed
a motion for reconsideration of that order, which the Court granted on December 1, 2015. (See 12/1/15
Mem. Op. & Order.) Defendant Cicero now asks the Court to reconsider its December 1, 2015 order,
or in the alternative, certify the order for interlocutory appeal or bifurcate the trial of the claims
asserted against Cicero from that of the claims asserted against defendant Garrity. Garrity asks the
Court for leave to file a motion to bifurcate or to submit a brief in support of Cicero’s request to
bifurcate. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies both motions.

Reconsideration
As Cicero points out, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate when the Court “‘has patently
misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by
the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.’” (Cicero’s Mot. Recons. at 2
(quoting Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir.

1996)).) However, “[r]econsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected
arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion.”
Caisse Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1270. Yet that is what Cicero’s motion does. It reiterates arguments
Cicero made in support of its partial summary judgment motion and those it could have but did not
raise in response to plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (See Cicero’s Reply Supp. Partial Summ.
J.; Cicero’s Resp. Pl.’s Mot. Recons.) Because Cicero has not presented an appropriate basis for
reconsideration, the motion is denied.

Interlocutory Appeal
Alternatively, Cicero asks the Court to certify for appeal the December 1, 2015 order. The
Court may certify an interlocutory order for appeal if the order: (1) “involves a controlling question
of law”; (2) “as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion”; and (3) “an immediate
appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b).
The Court need not address the first two requirements because the third is lacking. This case
has been pending for three and a half years and, with discovery and summary judgment proceedings
completed, is ready to be set for trial. An appeal, even if it were successful, would not dispose of the
entire case and would delay indefinitely the trial on the remaining claims. It is not fair to plaintiff,
defendant Garrity, or the Court to further prolong these proceedings so Cicero can obtain an immediate
ruling on an adverse decision. Therefore, the Court declines to certify the December 1, 2015 order for
appeal.

Bifurcation

2

Cicero asks the Court to bifurcate the trial of the claims against it from that of the claims
plaintiff asserts against Garrity. Garrity asks for leave to file his own bifurcation motion. Both
motions are premised on defendants’ expectation that plaintiff will seek and be permitted to introduce
at trial evidence about Garrity’s alleged history of substance abuse, emotional problems, and workrelated problems. Whether that is true will be decided by motions in limine, which have yet to be filed.
Because the bifurcation issue is not, and may never be, ripe for resolution, the Court denies both
motions without prejudice.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Cicero’s motion for reconsideration, or in the
alternative, to certify interlocutory appeal or bifurcate [339] and Garrity’s motion for leave to file a
motion to bifurcate claims [345]. Defendants may file motions to bifurcate, if appropriate, after
motions in limine are decided. The briefing schedule on Garrity’s motion to bifurcate [347] is vacated.
SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 25, 2016

__________________________________
HON. JORGE L. ALONSO
United States District Judge

3