Nohelty v. Lincolnwood School District # 74 et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on December 16, 2013. Mailed notice(cdh, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DR. KEVIN J. NOHELTY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LINCOLNWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT #74
)
SCOTT L. ANDERSON, JOHN P. VRANAS, )
KEVIN DALY AND GEORJEAN HLEPAS)
NICKELL,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No. 13 c 6408
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 18, 2012 this Court issued a sua sponte
memorandum order (“Order”) in Case No. 12 C 5594, in which Dr.
Kevin Nohelty (“Nohelty”) had sued Lincolnwood School District
#74 (“District”) and four members of its Board Of Education
(“Board”) in a multi-count Verified Complaint.
That Order held
that dismissal of the action was called for because of the lack
of federal subject matter jurisdiction:
Nohelty’s Complaint had
sought to predicate such jurisdiction on an asserted
constitutional deprivation (the claimed denial of due process of
law), but the Complaint’s allegations revealed that the
termination of his employment as District’s Assistant
Superintendent for Business had been preceded by a pretermination hearing that this Court held had satisfied the due
process requirement.
Three weeks later Nohelty filed a complaint against the same
defendants in the Circuit Court Of Cook County, bearing that
Court’s Case No. 12 CH 11421, and then in early August of this
year Nohelty filed an Amended Complaint that added an asserted
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Here is his Amended Complaint
Count I ¶ 34, which advances that contention:
Nohelty had a First Amendment right to support the
board members that hired him and approved the contract
extending his employment for one year until June 30,
2013.
On September 6 (within the 30-day period allowed for such
removal to this District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b))
defendants filed a Notice Of Removal to bring this action from
its place of origin to this District Court.1
But this Court’s
threshold review of the matter suggests that Nohelty may well be
confronted with a dispositive dismissal of Count I’s federalquestion claim on grounds of claim preclusion.2
After all, the
common gravamen of both the earlier lawsuit and the current one
is Nohelty’s assertedly wrongful termination, and on that score
Nohelty plainly could have invoked the claimed violation of the
1
Through an error in the Clerk’s Office, the action was
originally assigned at random to this Court’s colleague Honorable
John Lee, although this District Court’s LR 40.3(b)(2) called for
its being assigned directly to the calendar of this Court by
reason of its status as the refiling of a previously dismissed
action. That error is being corrected by transfer of the case to
this Court’s calendar.
2
This Court has always preferred the more precise
terminology of “claim preclusion” and “issue preclusion” rather
than the older and more common usage of “res judicata,” because
the latter term has regularly been given double duty by being
used to describe both types of preclusion.
2
First Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment the first time
around.
Accordingly this Court orders both Nohelty’s counsel and
defense counsel to file, on or before December 26, 2013,
submissions addressing the claim preclusion issue.
Because this
Court contemplates addressing that issue promptly thereafter,
paper copies of the parties’ submissions must be delivered to
this Court’s chambers on or before that same date (see this
District Court’s LR 5.2(f) and this Court’s website both
requiring the delivery of such hard copies).
________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Dated:
December 16, 2013
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?