Dobbins et al v. Village of Dolton et al
Filing
72
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/12/2014: Plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced if amendment is allowed because briefing on defendants' summary judgment motion is underway. That prejudice i s easily cured, however, by extending the briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court grants defendants' motion to assert the affirmative defense 59 , and extends plaintiffs' deadline to file their response to the summary judgment to November 24, 2014, and defendants' deadline for their reply to December 1, 2014. Mailed notice (cjg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CAROL DOBBIN, LYNNTOI
LAWSON, DUANE MUHAMMAD,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
VILLAGE OF DOLTON, an Illinois
)
municipality, VILLAGE OF DOLTON )
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, VILLAGE
)
TRUSTEE STANLEY BROWN,
)
VILLAGE TRUSTEE ROBERT HUNT, )
VILLAGE TRUSTEE TIFFANY
)
HENYARD, VILLAGE TRUSTEE
)
SABRINA SMITH, VILLAGE
)
TRUSTEE CATHERINE BENDELL,
)
)
Defendants.
)
No. 13 C 8140
Judge Ronald A. Guzmán
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by
firing them from their jobs with the Village of Dolton because they supported the mayor. Plaintiffs
filed their initial complaint in November 2013, and amended it in February 2014, solely to add
reinstatement to their prayer for relief. Defendants answered the first amended complaint in March
2014. Discovery closed in September, and the parties were ordered to file dispositive motions by
October 21.
On October 21, defendants not only filed a summary judgment motion, but a motion for leave
to assert the affirmative defense of legislative immunity, which plaintiffs oppose. Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(c) requires defendants to assert affirmative defenses in their pleadings. See id.
However, the Seventh Circuit “[has] held that a delay in asserting an affirmative defense waives the
defense only if the plaintiff was harmed as a result.” Curtis v. Timberlake, 436 F.3d 709, 711 (7th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see Williams v. Lampe, 399 F.3d 867, 871 (7th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)
(“The purpose of Rule 8(c) is to give the opposing party notice of the affirmative defense and a
chance to rebut it.”). “Thus, where the plaintiff has an opportunity to respond to a late affirmative
defense, he cannot establish prejudice merely by showing that the case has progressed significantly
since the defendants answered his complaint.” Williams, 299 F.3d at 871.
Plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced if amendment is allowed because briefing on
defendants’ summary judgment motion is underway. That prejudice is easily cured, however, by
extending the briefing schedule. Accordingly, the Court grants defendants’ motion to assert the
affirmative defense [59], and extends plaintiffs’ deadline to file their response to the summary
judgment to November 24, 2014, and defendants’ deadline for their reply to December 1, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 12, 2014
__________________________________
HON. RONALD A. GUZMAN
United States District Judge
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?