Swiatek v. Babich

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM Order written by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 11/16/2015. Mailed notice. (pjg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY SWIATEK,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON BABICH,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15 C 7570

MEMORANDUM ORDER
It was more than 2-1/2 months ago that counsel for Anthony Swiatek ("Swiatek") filed a
complaint against Brandon Babich ("Babich"), seeking to recover $485,000 in a breach of
contract action, with federal subject matter jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship. 1
And consistent with counsel's inattention to the operative rule referred to in n.1, counsel has
never complied with the mandate of LR 5.2(f) that a paper copy of that pleading be delivered
promptly to the chambers of the judge to whose calendar the case has been assigned.
This Court frequently issues a sua sponte memorandum order after something more than
a week has passed without a lawyer's compliance with LR 5.2(f), coupling an order for physical
delivery of the missing filing with a $100 fine payable by the noncompliant counsel. In this
instance such an order was entered on September 10, 2015, a few days short of two weeks after
the Complaint was filed. But that memorandum order was totally ignored by Swiatek's counsel,
just as the same counsel had failed to comply with Rule 8(a)(1) (see n.1) and with LR 5.2(f).

1

Swiatek's counsel had simply ignored the mandate of Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(a)(1)
that jurisdictional grounds must be included in a complaint's statement of claim, thus leaving it to
this Court to provide that missing ingredient.

Instead Swiatek's counsel has let the action lie fallow in terms of any communications to this
Court, with the only sign that the case is alive having come from Babich's counsel via a motion
for extension of time to file a pleading responsive to the Complaint (a motion that was granted
and that necessitated this Court's vacature of the initially scheduled status hearing date of
October 28 and the deferral of that status hearing to December 2).
That course of conduct (including the nonpayment of the $100 fine imposed by the
September 10 memorandum order) is really not excusable. Accordingly the fine is increased to
$300 and must be paid by Swiatek's counsel forthwith. Counsel is also ordered to transmit to
this Court (purely as an informational matter and not for filing) a copy of a letter to Swiatek
advising him that no reimbursement for the fine will be sought by counsel as part of any billing
for fees and expenses.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: November 16, 2015