Norris v. Franciscan Physician Network et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM Order: The motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 20] is denied and the moving defendants are ordered to file their answer to the Amended Complaint on or before July 15, 2015, while the previously set July 9, 2015 status date will be retained to discuss further proceedings in the case. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/26/2015:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE NORRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANCISCAN PHYSICIAN NETWORK /
SPECIALTY PHYSICIANS OF ILLINOIS,
CRAIG MILLER, NITA WIRKUS,
SHEREE BOYD, and MICHELLE BURGIO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 1494

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This action by Christine Norris ("Norris") against a group of defendants has been met
with a Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss filed by all but one of those
defendants [Dkt. No. 20], to which Norris' counsel has just responded with a detailed and legally
compelling 12-page responsive memorandum. 1 In this Court's studied view, any impartial reader
of the Amended Complaint ("AC") and of Norris' response 2 would reach two conclusions:

______________________________
1
Those same defendants had earlier filed a like motion against Norris' original
Complaint. On April 13, 2015 that motion was denied orally by this Court as moot when Norris'
counsel announced his intention to file an Amended Complaint. That filing took place on
May 11, and it is that amended pleading that is the target of the current motion.
2

Although Publilius Syrus counseled in his Maxim 545 that "no one should be judge in
his own cause," this Court feels safe in placing itself in the "impartial reader" category. It has of
course neither made nor implied any determination as to the merits of the case, instead following
the standard Rule 12(b)(6) approach at the present threshold stage of crediting Norris'
well-pleaded allegations and applying to them the "plausibility" standard prescribed by the
Twombly-Iqbal canon.

1.

Norris' recital of the harassing conditions to which she was allegedly
subjected at the defendants' hands and of the consequences that she
suffered as a result paints a truly appalling picture.

2.

For defense counsel to respond to those allegations with a motion to
dismiss the AC at the get go is, in candor, a prime candidate for that same
label.

It is frankly unnecessary to deal with the matter in chapter-and-verse terms, although one
exception calls for brief comment. Defendants complain that the AC's allegations tend to group
them rather than identifying specifically just which defendant is said to have committed which
act. This Court like others has on occasion dismissed pleadings on that score, but in this instance
Norris' Response at 2 explains satisfactorily why a threshold disposition on that ground would be
unfair here, where all defendants are alleged to have pursued the same goal of ridding themselves
of Norris. As Norris' counsel asserts, defendants themselves know what they did or did not do,
and discovery should suffice to deal with the situation.
By definition judicial time is the commodity in shortest supply in the justice system, so
that it has been more than enough for this Court to have been compelled to read and study the
opposing submissions and look at the principal cases cited by the opposing counsel. Suffice it to
say that the AC's allegations, considered under the standard referred to in n.2, clearly entitle
Norris to remain in court to pursue her claims. Accordingly the motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 20]
is denied and the moving defendants are ordered to file their answer to the AC on or before

-2-

July 15, 2015, while the previously set July 9 status date will be retained to discuss further
proceedings in the case.

Date: June 26, 2015

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

-3-