Wu et al v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al
Filing
111
MEMORANDUM Order: This memorandum order is being entered now so that Wus' new counsel has the maximum possible time available to be responsive to the consideration outlined here. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/19/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL H. WU and CHRISTINE T. WU,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Nos. 14 C 5392 and 15 C 2238
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court has received a notice of motion for amendment of judgment under
Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 59(e) in each of the captioned cases, filed by attorney Andrew May on
behalf of formerly pro se plaintiffs Michael and Christine Wu (collectively "Wus"). As this
Court's several earlier opinions have made exceedingly plain, a major part of the problems in
these cases had stemmed from Wus' stubborn persistence in attempting to go it alone despite this
Court's repeated urging that everyone involved -- they, their multiple targeted defendants and
this Court -- would be far better served by their turning to knowledgeable counsel (as they could
well afford) to handle their dispute. Attorney May's appearance on the scene is therefore a
welcome development.
That said, however, the motions as tendered are clearly missing an important -- and to
this Court an essential -- ingredient. Again everyone would be far better served by attorney
May's coupling of the motions with what any counsel would have done from the outset: the
submission of a lawyer-drawn complaint instead of the turgid and impenetrable work product
that has been tendered to date and that has in substantial part fueled the responses by this Court.
For serious consideration to be given to the noticed-up motions (which will be treated as timely
under the nonextendable provisions of Rule 59(e)), it is clear that any serious consideration of
the motions must perforce call for their being accompanied by a pleading that permits a reasoned
analysis of the future of this litigation if it were to go forward.
Although the notice of motion was dated June 17, the required paper copy of the notice
and motion were not delivered to this Court's courtroom deputy until sometime well into the
afternoon of June 18. Hence this Court had its first opportunity to read and review the
documents early today (June 19). This memorandum order is being entered now so that Wus'
new counsel has the maximum possible time available to be responsive to the consideration
outlined here. 1
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: June 19, 2015
1
Attorney May should also consider that it makes no sense at all for this single lawsuit
to carry two case numbers. That subject will be among the nonsubstantive issues to be discussed
on the designated June 26 presentment date.
-2-
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?