Brooks v. City of Chicago, et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/10/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CHANTELL BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

13 C 5871

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Because of the all-too-frequent noncompliance by counsel
with the directive of this District Court’s LR 5.2(f) that
requires the delivery of a paper copy of new case filings for the
assigned judge’s use within one business day after filing, this
Court initially amended its website to emphasize that
requirement.

When that step failed its purpose (a failure that

is entirely understandable, because the lawyers who consult
judicial websites are also those most likely to be aware of and
to comply with court rules), this Court was driven to the next
step:

It adopted a practice of issuing a standard form of

memorandum order that specifically called on counsel to comply
with LR 5.2(f) and to accompany the required delivery with a $100
check payable to the “Clerk of the District Court.”
For that purpose this Court has worked from periodic
printouts of the “Civil Cases Report” issued by the Clerk’s
Office and reflecting cases most recently assigned at random to
this Court’s calendar, with this short form of memorandum order

being issued only in those cases in which no judge’s copy of the
initial pleading had been delivered to this Court’s chambers.
And despite the literal one-business-day requirement of
LR 5.2(f), this Court has customarily allowed several days' grace
time before issuing such orders.

In this instance that added

time has elapsed without compliance by defendants’ counsel, and
it is hereby ordered:
1.

that the missing copy of the Notice of Removal and

accompanying documents be delivered to this Court's chambers
forthwith and
2.

that such delivery be accompanied by a check for

$100 payable to the "Clerk of the District Court" by reason
of the LR 5.2(f) violation, a requirement foreshadowed by
the opening provision in this Court's website.

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

September 10, 2013

2