Elmore v. City of Chicago et al

Filing 21

MOTION by Plaintiff Annette Elmore Re-Noticed for a Default Judgment (Exhibits). (lf, )

Download PDF
FIL 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 13 201 THOMAS G. CLERK, U.S, DIS 3 4 JAN D ANNETTE ELMORE, Case No. Plaintiff, 5 : I :l 5-CY -00224 MOTION 1 CITY OF CHICAGO, BOARD OF B EDUCATION, 9 body politic, et al., a municipal corporation, and Defendants. 10 COURT Judge: Sara L. Ellis vs. 6 \/ 11 PLAINTIFF'S RE. NOTICED For A DEFAULT JUDGMENT Against Defendants Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 55(a)(b)(2), Local Rule 83.15, L2 NDIL With Supporting Legal Documents 1a 74 COMES NOW the Plaintift, Annette Elmore hereafter, ("Plaintiff') against the City of 15 16 Chicago, Board of Education, et al., a municipal corporation, a body politic, hereafter, ("Board") !1 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(bX2), in her "Re-Noticed Motion," asking that 1B this Court grant Plaintiff her default judgment against defendants Board for having failed to 19 appear and otherwise plead against Plaintiff s Title VII 1964 "Prima Facie" and AEDA 20 2t 22 Complaint for race and age discrimination in the workplace properly re-filed in the U.S. District Court Central Division on January 5,2015 before U.S. District Court Judge Michael M. Mihm )2 under Civil Action 1:15-CV-1005. See U.S.C.A. g1390(a) 1406(b). The Service of Process 24 Board--Summons and Complaint was hand-delivered by Plaintiff s non-party server on June 1, za 2015.1 (Civil Action 1005 Entry Doc. #5) See Exhibit A filed. The Defendants had twenty-one 26 days (21) or 21 Z6 until June22.2015 to appear and plead against Plaintiff s Complaint-to date, t Jrdd v. F.C.C., 276 F.R.D. I (201l), "... default my be entered upon a defendant's failure to plead or otherwise defend, a defendant's obligation to respond to a complaint arises only upon service of the summons and complaint. Fed.RulesCiv.ProcRule 55. 28 U.S.C.A. PLAINTIFF' S MOTTON FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEEENDANTS - 1 tl.Afr 1 2 Defendants have never appeared in this lawsuit, nor have they plead against Plaintiff Complaint. (Civil Action 1005 Doc. Entry #5 June 10, 2015). See Exhibit B filed. PURSUANT TO ILND LR 83.15 3 4 s THIS COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER PARTIES 5 .PRIOR' TO DECEMBER 13.2016 6 1 B o 10 This Court needs to acknowledge that it did not have any'Jurisdiction" over the Plaintiff nor the Defendant in this Case until December 13,2016. Plaintiff factually states the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 83.15 requires both parties to file an 'appearance' before they can be heard before any judge in the ILND Court. Neither Plaintiff 11 72 nor Defendant completed, or officially filed appearance forms pursuant to LR 83.15 therefore, 13 this Court was "lmproper" to send any communications ("Minute Entries") to the Plaintiff L4 regarding its alleged'Jurisdiction" over her citing Rule 4(m) on May 28. 2015. 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT'S LOCAL RULE 83.15 76 'oUnless the parties officially completed appearance forms pursuant to LR 81.15 to be 77 1B heard before this litigation at issue, this Court was in violation of LR 83.15 to send Plaintiff any t9 Minute entries providing any sort of instruction to Plaintiff regarding Process Service to 20 Defendant. This Court took a illegal liberty when it sent Plaintiff a'minute entry' ordering her 27 )) 23 to effect, "Seryice of Process" upon the Defendants-This Court 'pre' December 13,2016 according to the ILND Local Rule 83.15 could not and should not have made any attempt to, "Prevent Plaintiff from entering a default judgment against the Defendants," by attempting to 25 26 21 send Plaintiff a "Minute Entry" ordering Plaintiff to serve anything to the Defendants. Plaintiff factually contends that this Court is fully aware that it had no jurisdiction over the Parties from January 5, 2015 to Decemb er 12, 2O16 in that there has never been any ..final 28 PLATNTIFE' S MOTION FOR DEEAULT JUDGMENT AGATNST DEEENDANTS - 2 1 2 3 4 ordsr," by this Court "Pre" December 13,2016. Additionally, this Court'Notification of Docket Entry," is made by Ms. Rhonda Johnson, this Court's Deputy Clerk: "Plaintifffailed to ffictuate service for the reasons stated in the Court's prior order of [Doc. #9 6/23/2015)." See Exhibit #2. 5 THIS COURT'S DENIAL DOES IS NON.APPLICABLE 6 't It is clear to the Plaintiff that this Court has engaged in an illicit procedure by attempting B to provide an "Minute Entry" text on a case this Court had absolutely no jurisdiction 9 had no jurisdiction over either Party: On 10 over-it May 28,2ol5See (ECF No. 5-1 :15-CY-00224) "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 11 72 13 Procedure 4(m), the time to serve Defendants expired on May 5, 2015. Plaintiffhas notfiled proof of service to demonstrate that Defendants were served by this date. The Court gives L4 Plaintiff until June 4, 201 5 to file 15 by June 4, 2015, the case will such proof of service. If Plaintiff does not file proof of service be dismissed without prejudice to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1,6 4(m). Mailed Notice (rj,) (Entered: 05/28/2015.") See Exhibit #3. Plaintiff states to this Court, 11 1B "a proof of service," is the "Affidavit attesting that proof of Service -it is the Summons along L9 with the Complaint of the Plaintiff. Plaintifls Summons and Complaint were served upon 20 Defendants on June 1,2015. Plaintiff s filings of that proof were submitted to this Court on 2t December 13,201G-also filed with the clerk for the ILND, Thomas Bruton. 22 23 This Court could not 'order' nor should this Court have entered and directed any minute 24 entry toward Plaintiff to do anything toward the Defendants 25 is in violation of ILND Local Rule 83.15. This Court needs to note that even though it had no 26 jurisdiction over the Plaintiff or Defendants-Plaintiff had Defendants served June l, 2015 and 21 -this Court's alleged Minute Entry Proof of Service (Affidavit) went to the ILCD via email (new case initiation) on June 3,2015 28 PLAINTIFF' S MOTION EOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS - 3 (thus satisfring FRCP 4(m). This Court's behavior is an attempt to take advantage of the 1 2 Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, and to assist Defendants who Plaintiff has proven in her prior lawsuit 3 (1:12-CV-07531) that Court is a former Lawyer for the City of Chicago Department of Law 4 along with Patricia J. Kendall- City of Chicago, Board of Education Counsel of Record, whom 5 Plaintiff reminds this Court did not withdraw from this litigation in violation of the Federal Ru 6 1 8 9 10 11 L2 of Civil Procedure. For reasons outlined in Local Rule 83.15 the ILND forbids any Judge in its Court to attempt to preside over any lawsuit in which the Parties have not made official appearances pursuant to its Local Rule. If this Court had such jurisdiction over the Plaintiff and Defendants in this Federal litigation, "why did this Court not supply a written signed order (BEFORE' 13 December 13,2016?" There was never any signed Order on the Civil Docket and Plaintiff nor L4 did Defendants receive such a signed order reflecting such an order of "dismissal" by this Court. 15 This Court certainly cannot make a [pJost attempt to do so." 16 Plaintiff further propounds: "Even though She knows this Court had absolutely no L1 1B jurisdiction over either party before December 13,2016, Plaintiff in order to take any argument 19 from the Defendants had Defendants served on June 1,2015 with the U.S. Central Division's 20 Federal Summons and Plaintiff s Complaint; She also filed the Proof of service filed on June 3, 2L 2015 via email to the Clerk of the Central Division, Kenneth Wells -who has acknowledge 22 receiving Plaintiff s email that contained Plaintiff 23 s Proof of Service Affidavit on Civil Action 24 l:15-CV-1005. According to case law authorities, Defendants are officially responsible to )\ answer a summons and complaint served upon them "even if a plaintiff has not submitted the 26 proof of service affidavit to a court for filing. See Plaintiff s previous case law authorities cited. 21 2B PLAINT]FF' S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS - 4 Even though Judge Mihm claimed transfer of Plaintiff s case to ILND under 1:15-CV1 2 3 4 00224 neither Plaintiff nor Defendant made any official appearance pursuant to ILND'S LR 83.15. Judge Michael Mihm gave, "TEXT ORDERS" after claiming he had sponte) to transfer Plaintiff s case a right (Sua without any motion by Defendants pursuant to the 5 Fed.R.Civ.P. Even after Judge Mihm's alleged, "Sua sponte," 6 1 !@still had no jurisdiction over Plaintiffand Defendant. Judge Mihm's order entries prove such: 1 . "SUMMONS Returned B Executed by Annette Elmore. City Served on 6/1/2015, answer due 6/22/2015. 9 5). 2. "If Plaintiffwants 10 to " See (ECF No. pursue this Motion (Defoult), she must re-file it in the Northern District of lllinois case. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 6/30/2016. " See (ECF No. 7). 11 3. L2 13 1,4 15 "Email messages received by Clerk's ffice on 6/3/2015 sent Elmore. " See (ECF by pro se plaintiffAnnette No. 7). The 'message' was o copy of the Proof of Service AfJidovit completed by Plaintiffs non-party server alreadytiled in the ILND Clerk's OfJice on December 13,2016. 76 DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFIED MAILING OF DEFAULT 11 1B On December 13, 2016 Board was sent copies of the following documents via USPS 19 Certified Mail tracking, # 70151730000115250293 a copy of Plaintiff s certified mail receipt is 20 attached. See Exhibit #1. Plaintiff has contacted the USPS telling Post Office that 'Board' has a 27 very bad habit of telling someone at the 'downtown and Chinatown' Post Offices to, o'hold up 22 Plaintiff s Certified Mail---keep tracking information marked "in transit" and do not retum the 23 24 green proof of mal receipt. Board has factually tampered and interfered with 25 to them-there have been several instances where Plaintiff has emailed several complaints to the 26 USPS Complaint Department on line only to have the same thing take place. As of December 2't Plaintiff s mailings 21,2016 there has been no updated tracking information regarding Plaintiff s mailing 2B PLATNTIFF' S MOT]ON EOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEEENDANTS - 5 of: 1). 1 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment filed December 13, 2016. 2). Plaintiff s swom Affidavit In Support of Request for Entry of Default filed December 13, 2016. 3). Proposed Default 3 Judgment form to Clerk of the U.S. District Court, Northem Illinois, Thomas G. Bruton. 4). 4 Clerk letter of ll12/2015 pursuant to LR 83.15. 5). U.S. District Court (Peoria, IL) Civil Docket 5 for 1:15-CV-1005 pages l-3. 6). Summons from U.S. District Court (Peoria, IL) with affixed 6 7 8 9 10 signature of Clerk of the U.S. District Court Kenneth A. Wells January 5,2015. 7). Proof Service on of Civil Action 1:15:CV-1005 6/l/2015 by Plaintiff s non-party server. 8.) Acknowledgment of Service of Summons Complaint and Proof of Service to Defendant's Counsel RE: Case l5-1005 Dated June 1, 2015 date stamped by City of Chicago, Board of 11 12 13 Education Department of Law. 9). Email from Plaintiffto Clerk in Peoria, IL (under new case initiation) Plaintiff s pdf. Submission of the Proof of Service to Defendants on June 3,2015 at 7:13PM. These are the documents Board is now trying to 'pretend' they have not received via IJ USPS Certified mail from Plaintiff mailed December 13, 2016. 76 Plaintiffhas received USPS Certified Mail green Receipt card for l1 1B 19 2nd mailing of Plaintiff s filed documents to Defendants USPS tracking #9590940215685362913047. Exhibit #l See filed. 20 27 In keeping with the Second step of the Default Process in the ILND Court, Plaintiff will 22 23 be once again sending Defendants Board a USPS Certified Copy of all previous filed documents 24 that were mailed Certified December 13,2016; Plaintiff will also be sending the following to 25 Board: 26 and presentment of that 21 l. Plaintiffs filed Motion of Default Judgment before this Court 2. Notice of Motion Motion (the date of the hearing is scheduled seven days out---Defi in other words has seven days sufficient before the hearing takes place these documents will be 2B PLAINTIEF' S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGA]NST DEPENDANTS - 6 sent, nnder USPS Tracking # 70151730000115250309 and also, regular First Class mail to 7 2 3 Board's Law Department address: I North Dearbom Ste #900, Chicago, 60602 as indicated by court procedure for default motions. 4 JURISDICTION WAS NEVER CHALLENGED BY DEFENDANTS 5 PURSUANT TO THE U.S. CODE AND FEDERAL RULE "Nothing in this chapter (28 U.S.C. Cure or l{aiver of Defects) shall impair the 6 1 lL iurisdiction of a district court of any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and B sfficient objection to the venue. " See 28 U.S.C. $1406(b). See also, 28 U.S.C. 9 10 $1391(a)(1X1XbX1)(2). The Defendants did not make an appearance in the U.S. Central 11 District (Peoria, Illinois) as same are residents of the State of Illinois pursuant to 28 72 1391(a)(l)(lxbxl)(2). Jurisdiction of a court is determined by a defendants 'State' not 13 residency-not municipal boundaries as indicated by Judge Michael M. Mihm-Therefore I4 Plaintiffls states Judge Mihm's 'sua sponte' was improper against the Plaintiff. 76 71 1B See Exhibit C filed. Additionally, Defendants violated Federal Rule of civil procedure l2(1XAXi)(B)4(b)(1X3) in that Defendants did not file an appearance before the U.S. Distr 19 Court Central Division nor did they place a motion challenging Plaintiff s right to venue as 20 27 'improper' in the U.S. District Court Central Division. 22 THE NORTHERN DISTRICT'S 23 LOCAL RULE ON APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COURT 24 The Defendants pursuant to Eastem Division's Local Rule 83.15 and 83.16 have failed to 25 also appear and/or otherwise plead before this Court in 26 Local Rule states:. "Local Rule 83.15 of this Court require that as appearance form 21 Civil Action I :15-CV-00224 Eastern an attorney who intends to represent a party in any proceeding before this court. " Z6 PLAINTTEF' S MOTTON EOR DEEAULT JUDGMENT AGATNST DEEENDANTS - 7 be filed by IJ.S. District Court Clerk Thomas G. Bruton mailed Rule 83 Transfer In Letter to Defendants-In Letter 1 Z entered on January 12,2015. Plaintiff has filed her appearance on December 13, 2016. See 3 Exhibits D-E filed. 4 More than twenty-one (21) days have elapsed since defendants in this litigation were 5 served---Defendants have even before this tribunal failed to make an official appearance 6 1 B pursuant to LR 83.15 and LR 83.16 as well as failed to otherwise plead or defend as provided by Rule l2(1)(AXiXB)4(bX1)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 FEDERAL CASE LAW PRECEDENT AND PROOF OF SERVICE 10 The Plaintiff 'timely' had served both summons and Complaint upon the Defendants. 11 72 Defendants have never stated otherwise as they have never filed an appearance in Plaintiff 13 lawsuit. Furthermore A defendant in a lawsuit is legally responsible for answering the Summons I4 and Complaint served upon them even s [i]f the 'proof of service' is not timely in a court. 15 DEFENDANTS l6 Relevant case law leaves no argument that the orelevant' portions of a litigation that L1 1B 79 Plaintiff is responsible to have served upon the defendant are the Summons of the Court and the Complaint of the Defendant. On June 1,2015 Plaintiff s non-party server personally hand- 20 delivered both Summons and Complaint from the U.S. District Court Central Division (where 2L lawsuit was filed) upon Defendants City of Chicago, Board of Education et al. Completed 22 Process Service indicated Defendants had twenty-one days (21) or until June 22,2015 to answer 23 Plaintiff s Complaint-they did not appear, answer, or otherwise plead. 24 681 F. 3d 368; Bartlette v. Hyatt Regency F. supp. 3d---- (20t6); Light v. 25 26 21 2B 751 (D.c.cir. See Mann v. Castiel, wolf, g16F.2d746, 1987), therefore, the Defendants are in default of the lawsuit. CENTRAL DIVISION NEW CASE INITIATION PROCEDURES Pursuant to Central Division Local Rules 5.5 B (l) and 5.7 B (l)(a), (Proof of Service in .pdf format), was accepted and filed by the Central Division through its email acceptance for PLAfNTIFE' S MOTTON FOR DEEAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEEENDANTS - 8 1 new case initiation. Clerk's Office received Plaintiff s "proof of service" frling on June 3,2015. 2 See 3 sent to Clerk 4 See 5 The Board, nor can this Court claim untimely "proof of service," if Plaintiff had not submitted to 6 Clerk of the Court for filing: 1 "A defendant must answer the complaint within B 9 Exhibit #3 (filed), Civil Action 1005-ECF No. 8. A hard copy of proof of service was also of Central Division on June 5,2015 as indicated in Plaintiff s email via USPS mail Exhibit #4 filed. Therefore, Plaintiff s proof of service was proper and timely against Board fails timely to prove service by district court may permit proof filing o-f a server's 2l days after being served, even if the ffidavit or plaintiff files defective proof of service, for t service to be amended." Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. Rules 4(D(3), t-0 12(a)(1)(A), 28 U.S.C.A. See Mann v. Castiel, 11 "Although the district court cannot be assured that it has jurisdiction over a defendant until the 681 f.3d 368 (2012). Additionally Mann states, 1,2 plaintifffiles proof of service, the defendant(s) becomes a party 'fficially,' and is required to 13 take action in that capacity, upon service (of Summons and Complaint) pursuont to, Fed.Rules T4 Civ.Proc.Rule 4@ (l), 28 U.S.C.A. 15 76 l1 THIS COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER PARTIES Pursuant to Eastern Division's Local Rule 83.15 this Court did not have jurisdiction over 1B either Pu.ty, "The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Local Rule 83.15 of this Court 79 require that an appearance form be filed by an attomey who intends to represent a party in any 20 proceeding before this Court." 21 The Eastern Division LR 83.15 and 83.16 makes it clear: "Local Rute 83.15 of this 22 Court require that as appeqrance form 23 in any proceeding before this court. 24 party who has not filed an appearance with the Clerk's office "who intends to represent a party 25 in any proceeding before this court.") Therefore when a (Judge) cannot make minute entries, zb 'seek to enforce them; nor can any judge write orders in favor of or against any party who has 27 not officially filed its appearance before a court giving permission for Court to have personal 2B jurisdiction over the party when fhe Local Rules of the court in question forbid " be filed by an attorney who intends to represent a party No Judge (in the ILND) has personal jurisdiction over any a judge from PLAINTIFE' S MOTION FOR DEEAULT JUDGMENT AGA]NST DEFENDANTS - 9 1 engaging in such activity. For any judicial officer to promote or engage in such actions speaks 2 potential illicit motive(s) with the intent to assist in many cases the defending party, 3 prejudice the opposing 4 party-Vis, in this litigation, the Plaintiff. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants by way of Plaintiff s filed proof 5 of service; this Court must note for the record Defendant City's lack of appearance in this 6 litigation before Judge Mihm and before this Court speaks volumes of Defendants not wanting to '7 be involved in this B Central and Northern Divisions of the U.S. District in Illinois. 9 10 lawsuit-no voluntary appearance was ever filed by Defendant Board in the PREVIOUS MINUTE ENTRIES OF COURT ARE MOOT A Court cannot attempt to grant a win to a defendant who never appears or pleads in a 11 lawsuit. A Defendant cannot win a case they have never participated in pursuant to Fed.Rules o t2 Civ. P and Local Rules Civ. P. " ...Defenses of insfficiency of service of process and lack 1) jurisdiction over the person were waived by failure to of file any motions or responsive pleadings, " 1_4 pursuant to, Fed.Rules Civ. Ptoc. Rules 4(d), l2(hX1XB),28 U.S.C.A. See Cargill, Inc. v. S.S. 15 Nasugbu, 404 F. Supp. 342 (197 5). 76 As in Plaintiff s lawsuit, Board has never made an appearance, in the U.S. District Courts 71 for ILCD nor the ILND; Defendant Board has failed to appear or otherwise plead in this 1B litigation therefore a judgment by default is warranted against them. L9 20 21 CONCLUSION Wherefore, Plaintiff Annette Elmore has re-noticed her motion and thus so moves this a) Court to adhere to Federal and Local Rules of this Court and the Central Division (Peoria, IL) 23 pursuant to, 5.5 B (1) and 5.7 B (l)(a), and: 1. Order the Clerk of the Court to His default 24 judgment against the Defendants as Plaintiff has filed the necessary documents for Clerk's 25 default on December 13, 2076 and December 22,2016. 26 default judgment in the amount of S12.5 million dollars against City of Chicago, Board 2'7 Education and its Officers for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 28 in Employment Discrimination Act of (AEDA)1967 against Plaintiff due to her race (African- PLAINTfFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 2. Thatthis Court also grant Plaintiff a of of 1964 andthe Age JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS _ 10 1 American) and age (Past age 40 at the time of this lawsuitFidentifred in Plaintiff s Prima Facie 2 Complaint citing McDonnell Douglas v. Green 1973-which Board refused to participate in this 3 legal action against them--includ.ing costs, legal fees, compensatory, non-compensatory future 4 compensatory, pecuniary and non-pecuniary, and future pecuniary damages outlined in her lawsuit including interest on the judgment at the legal rate until the judgment is satisfied 6 immediately-without further delay on January 19.2017 at 9:30AM. '7 B o Dated this 1lrH 10 11 72 Plaintiff, Pro Se _ 11 13 74 Exhibits l-3 attached 15 71 Annette Elmore 3445 S. Rhodes Avenue #400 Chicago, IL 60616 3 12-593 -8360 (leave message) 18 Copy of 2nd USpS Certified Receipt attached. 19 Certificate of Service attached. L6 20 2t 23 24 25 26 2't zd PLAINTIFF' S MOTION FOR DEFAULT ,]UDGMENT AGATNST DEEENDANTS USPSTRACKI.IG# ilIlllillllrffiftilffiil]mlilllilil qsio lqoi,tt'Bblsrre 5r3o Unlted States tr? . Sender: Please print your nam6, address, Et r-.rn Ci\ e- V. C,, rt rlc.Har, . ot q r+ chico rr,or<3'ttSs E. tE-)roci-q_s lfu- # Ch;c0.1 o , T_L Leou tlz 4c,O ill,fl1lrl,pllll1rf1lllf f rl,,f ilf ,llt,,i,l,il,,ipll1f Po$alSrvlee ilLi,llll tnnc-$a- o r,,s'::;!:tl!or ed a O\L r r r Complete ltems 1,2, and 3. Prlnt )rour narne and addt€Es on the l€verse so that wE can retum the cad to You. Attach thls cad to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if El Agqrt C, Date of D. lsdelfueryaddr€dlftr€ntfom 1. ArtlcleAddEss€dto: !'W af chicago, ed 'oi edDnff, f+ kr-l^j ftem 1? E b6low: E l, YES, enter delivery addr€ss Dollvr Yes No pftN'. ftorrc,-lcL L. [}'lctrntn t -Anlj I t.). I:acr-rtc>rn Si i+-.?oO Cfiico.g0, j-L t4aiooz- llilllll lll lllllllll lillil 2. Arfiie Number ll ll llllllll I lil 9590 9402 1568 5362 fi34 47 sr,rulcB laba| Restristed Delivsry ResHcted Dellv€ry QS Form Dom€stio REtum Recei 1, .July 2015 PSN 753&02-OOG9o53 t: 01 Lxl,.+ lt Case: 1:15-cv-00224 Document #: 20 Filed: L21281L6 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #;155 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIm Northern District of Illinois - CI\,I/ECF LM, Ver 6.1.1 Eastern Division Annette Elmore Plaintiff, Case No.: I : 15-cv-00224 Honorable Sara L. Ellis City Of Chicago, et al. Defendant. NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY This docket entry was made by the Clerk on wednesday, December 2g,2016: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Plaintiffs motion and written request for entry of default judgment U7, 191are denied. Plaintiff failed to effectuate service for the reasons stated in the Court's prior order of [Doc#9 6l23t2ol5]. Plaintiffs motions have not corrected the issues raised in the Court's-prior order and the..u.onirg dismissing this gase stands. No appearance required ll19l1i. This case remains terminated. Mailed notice(rj, ) ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of thE Fedeial Rules of Criminil'procedure. It was generated_by- CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute ordlrbr other document is enclosed, pi"^" refer to it for additional information. For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourti.gov. 1rh *L CM/ECF LME, Ver 6.1.1 6n12016 - U.S. District Court, Northern lllinois INTERDIST - TRANSF,KIM,TERMED United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LryE, Ver G.l.l (Chicago) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: t:15-cv-00224 Elmore v. City of Chicago et al Assigned to: Honorable Sara L. Ellis Case in other court: Illinois Central, 1:15-cv-01005 Cause: 42:L981 Job Discrimination (Race) Date Filed:01106/2015 Date Terminated: 061 10/2015 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nahrre of Suit 442CivilRights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Annette Elmore represented by Annette Elmore Apt.400 3445 S. Rhodes Ave. Chicago, IL 60616 312_s93_8360 PRO SE V. Defendant City Of Chicago Board of Education and District #299 Officers Defendant David Vitale sued in his individual and fficial capacitlt, b oth s everely and j ointly Defendant Barbara Byrd-Bennett sued in her individual and fficial capacitlt, both severely and jointly Defendant Rham Emanuel sued in his individual and fficial capacity, both severely and j ointly 01/0s/201s ! EXHIBlT *Ie- COMPLAINT of Employment Discrimination against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400.00 Receipt 14626022315), filed by Annette Elmore. (Attachments: + Civil 1 https://ecf.ilnd.uscourb.gov/cgi-birvDktRpt.d?10035/B1n241WL 1 G1 CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1 - U.S. District Court, NortiErn lllinois Cover Sheet)(Rll ilcd) (Additional attachment(s) added ot ll5l20l5: # 2 Summons) (RK, ilcd). [Transferred from Illinois Centual onlll2l2015.] (Entered: 0U0slzots) TEXT ONLY ORDER re: Transfer of Case. Plaintiffbrings this suit against the City of Chicago, Board of Education, David Vitale, Barbara Byrd-Bennett (in their individual and official capacity as District #299 Officers (Chicago Public Schools)) and Rham Emanuel alleging Age and Race discrimination arising out of her layoff (termination) from the school district. (See ECF No. 1 at 7). Plaintiff is currently living in Chicago, Illinois (see ECF No. 1 at 5). In her Complaint, Plaintiff provides that "District court, this case is being re-opened in the U.S. District Court of Illinois, CentraWeoria division pursuant to Courts' subject-matter jurisdiction based on the federal question, in keeping with the courts['] power to render a judgment, and in the interest ofjustice." (ECF No. 1 at 11). However, Plaintiff does not allege any facts that demonstrate the Central District of Illinois is the proper forum. Indeed, all parties appear to be situated in the Northem Distuict (Chicago) and the matter involves Plaintiffs employment (and termination) from the City of Chicago (Public Schools). Plaintiffattached a docket sheet of a previously litigated case involving her and the City of Chicago Board of Education filed in the Northem District of Illinois. (ECF No. 1 at 58). That case also involved employment discrimination. Id. That case was dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution for Plaintiffs failure to comply with court orders. See Annette Elmore v. City of Chicago Board of Education, NDIL Case No. 12-7531. While that case may have some impact on this litigation, the Court finds, sua sponte, that the Northem District of Illinois is the proper forum for this case. The Clerk of the Court is directed to hansfer this case to the Northem District of Illinois. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm onll5/2015. (MMM4, ilcd) [Transferred from Illinois 0U0512015 Cenhal on I / 12/201 5.1 (Entered: 01 0U0sl20ts 2 Summons Issued 0Ut212015 3 RECEIVED from Illinois Central; /05 12015) to City of Chicago. (SW, ilcd) [Transferred from Illinois Cenkal on I/12/2015.1 (Entered: O1/0612015) as Case Number 1:1 5-cv-0 I 005. (Entered: 0t/t2l20ts) MAILED Rule 83 Transfer In Letter to all parties of record. (meg, ) (Entered: 01/12l20ts) 011t212015 4 0s12812015 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), the t'me to serve Defendants expired on May 5,2015. Plaintiffhas not filed proof of service to demonstrate that Defendants were served by this date. The Court gives Plaintiffuntil June 4,2015 to file such proof of service. If Plaintiffdoes not file proof of service by June 4,2015, the case will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Mailed notice (f , ) (Entered: O5/2812015) 06/101201s 6 MINUTE enhry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: On May 28,2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service by June 4, 2015 or risk dismissal of the suit. Doc. 5. Plaintiffhas failed to comply with the Court's May 28,2015 order. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 06ll0l20ts) hft ps ://ecf.i I nd. uscourts.gov/cgi-bi n/D kR pt.pl ?1 0C[5/8 1T|241S]L_1 _G 1

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?