Wu et al v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al

Filing 62

MEMORANDUM Order: With Michael and Christine Wu having finally retained counsel after this Court's repeated urging that they do so rather than trying to go it alone in this complex litigation, this Court's docket review has revealed that at torney Andrew May filed a proposed Amended Complaint in each of these cases on July 20 without complying with this District Court's LR 5.2(f) requirement that paper copies of all filings be delivered to this Court's chambers within one work ing day. Although this Court never issues this type of memorandum order without allowing appropriate flexibility as to the timing of that required delivery, in this instance -- with a preset status hearing having been scheduled for July 29 -- counsel 's several days' delinquency in compliance is simply not excusable. Accordingly attorney May is ordered: 1. to deliver a paper copy of the new filing in each of the two cases to this Court's chambers forthwith -- not later than Monday, July 27; and 2. to accompany that delivery with a check for $200 payable to the Clerk of Court as a fine for counsel's noncompliance, with no reimbursement to be sought from the clients. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/24/2015: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
With Michael and Christine Wu having finally retained counsel after this Court's repeated
urging that they do so rather than trying to go it alone in this complex litigation, this Court's
docket review has revealed that attorney Andrew May filed a proposed Amended Complaint in
each of these cases on July 20 without complying with this District Court's LR 5.2(f)
requirement that paper copies of all filings be delivered to this Court's chambers within one
working day. Although this Court never issues this type of memorandum order without allowing
appropriate flexibility as to the timing of that required delivery, in this instance -- with a preset
status hearing having been scheduled for July 29 -- counsel's several days' delinquency in
compliance is simply not excusable. Accordingly attorney May is ordered:
1.

to deliver a paper copy of the new filing in each of the two cases to this
Court's chambers forthwith -- not later than Monday, July 27; and

2.

to accompany that delivery with a check for $200 payable to the Clerk of
Court as a fine for counsel's noncompliance, with no reimbursement to be
sought from the clients.

Date: July 24, 2015

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge