Gates v. Cook County School District 104 et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 1/19/2016:Mailed notice(wp, )

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

KJ, a Minor by and through
his mother and next friend,
LEATRICE; and LEATRICE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 15 C 8551

v.

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

COOK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
104, TROY WHALEN, and
ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants

Cook

County

School

District

104,

Troy

Whalen, and the Illinois State Board of Education (“ISBE”)
(collectively, the “District”) move to reassign Case No. 15
C 10386 to this Court based on a finding of relatedness
[ECF No. 38].

For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is

denied without prejudice.
I.
The

Court

draws

BACKGROUND
the

following

facts

from

the

District’s Motion and the June 2, 2015 and November 10,
2015

final

process

Orders

issued

administrative

in

two

proceedings.

special
(See,

education
June 2,

due
2015

Final

Order,

ECF

No.

1,

at

6;

November

10,

2015

Final

Order, No. 15-cv-10386, ECF No. 7-2.)
On

September

28,

2015,

Plaintiff

Leatrice

Gates

(“Plaintiff”) filed the instant lawsuit on behalf of her
son

(the

order.

“Student”),

appealing

the

June

2,

2015

final

Plaintiff filed her first Due Process Complaint

Notice (“DPCN”) on November 21, 2014.

However, pursuant to

a settlement agreement reached in a separate proceeding in
the Northern District of Illinois, Plaintiff withdrew that
DPCN.

On February 16, 2015, the District filed its own

DPCN, and on February 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a new DPCN.
On June 2, 2015, the impartial hearing officer (“IHO”)
granted the District’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its
DPCN and the District’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s DPCN.
The IHO granted summary judgment based on its finding that
a Vision Itinerant Report, dated September 29, 2014, did
not constitute an evaluation pursuant to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, and therefore Plaintiff’s
right to an independent educational evaluation (“IEE”) was
not triggered.

The IHO also dismissed Plaintiff’s DPCN

based on its finding that the District did not violate a
stay-put placement when it made changes to the Student’s
transportation arrangement.

On appeal, Plaintiff seeks a

finding that the settlement agreement reached in federal
- 2 -

court does not extend to ISBE Case No. 2015-0149, a finding
that the District violated state and federal laws, and a
finding

“that

the

Student’s

stay-put

provision

Christian School [“Elim”] in the 8th grade.”

is

Elim

(Compl., ECF

No. 1, at 5.)
On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed Case No. 10389
in this District, appealing a November 10, 2015 final order
reached in a separate administrative proceeding.
filed the underlying DPCN on June 2, 2015.

Plaintiff

The following

day, the District and Elim issued an eighth grade diploma
to the Student.

Plaintiff then amended her DPCN to include

a claim contesting the Student’s promotion to ninth grade.
The due process hearing was bifurcated so that the
promotion issue could be heard first.
several
this

continuances
Court

proceeding.

and

later

attempting

to

filed
stay

Plaintiff was issued
several
the

motions

in

administrative

Despite numerous additional objections lodged

by Plaintiff, a hearing was finally convened on November 4,
2015.

Plaintiff did not appear, and the IHO subsequently

dismissed the case for want of prosecution.

On appeal,

Plaintiff

denied

seeks

a

finding

that

the

District

the

student a free and appropriate public education and impeded
Plaintiff’s participation in the Student’s Individualized
Education Program (“IEP”) by predetermining the Student’s
- 3 -

grade level without an IEP meeting.
Plaintiff

also

seeks

a

finding

remain in eighth grade at Elim.

Among other things,

that

the

Student

is

to

That case, captioned KJ, a

minor by and through his mother and next friend Leatrice;
and Leatrice v. Cook County School District 104 et al., is
now pending before District Judge John Robert Blakey.
II.

ANALYSIS

A party seeking to reassign a case on the basis of
relatedness

must

satisfy

Rule 40.4(a) and 40.4(b).

the

requirements

of

both

Local

Williams v. Walsh Const., No. 05

C 6807, 2007 WL 178309, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 16, 2007).
Local Rule 40.4(a) provides that “two or more civil cases
may be related” if any one of the following conditions are
met:

“(1) the cases involve the same property; (2) the

cases involve some of the same issues of fact or law; (3)
the cases grow out of the same transaction or occurrence;
or (4) in class action suits, one or more of the classes
involved in the cases is or are the same.”
Rule

40.4(c)(1),

the

moving

party

must

“set

Under Local
forth

the

points of commonality of the cases in sufficient detail to
indicate that the cases are related within the meaning of
section (a).”
Here, the District broadly contends that “[a] review
of both the final hearing officers[’] decisions shows that
- 4 -

the issues raised overlap and the parties have a history of
matters

presented

before

[ISBE]

and

(District Mem., ECF No. 38, at 5.)

federal

court.”

The Court has reviewed

both orders, and the cases appear to involve at least “some
of the same” issues, such as whether the Student should
remain in eighth grade at Elim. However, the District has
failed

to

comply

Rule 40.4(c)(1),
“points

of

with

which

the

requirements

requires

commonality”

it

between

to

the

of

Local

articulate
two

cases

the
with

specificity.
Local

Rule

40.4(b)

imposes

“more

stringent

for the case to qualify for reassignment.”
WL 178309, at *2.

criteria

Williams, 2007

All four of the following conditions

must be met:
(1) both cases are pending in this Court; (2) the
handling of both cases by the same judge is
likely to result in a substantial saving of
judicial time and effort; (3) the earlier case
has not progressed to the point where designating
a later filed case as related would be likely to
delay
the
proceedings
in
the
earlier
case
substantially; and (4) the cases are susceptible
of disposition in a single proceeding.
L.R.

40.4(b)(1)–(4).

moving

party

must

Under

Local

Rule

the

extent

“indicate

40.4(c)(2),
to

which

the
the

conditions required by section (b) will be met if the cases
are found to be related.”

- 5 -

The

Court

is

satisfied

conditions are met.

that

the

first

and

third

There is no question that both cases

are pending in the Northern District of Illinois, and that
the instant case is still in its early stages, such that a
finding

of

proceedings

relatedness

would

likely

However,

substantially.

not

delay

without

the

identifying

the specific issues of fact and law these cases share, the
District has failed to show how reassignment will result in
a “substantial saving” of judicial time and resources.

The

District suggests that the administrative record for both
cases will likely “contain some of the same documents, such
as the student’s records from the same period, and there
are

similar

issues

and

relief

requested

in

the

two

lawsuits,” (District Mem., ECF No. 38, at 5–6), but the
Court

finds

this

conclusory

statement

inadequate

under

Local Rule 40.4(c)(2).
In addition, the District does not explain how the
fourth condition is satisfied.

Indeed, the District notes

that the Court will need to issue separate rulings on each
of the final orders.
decision

as

to

For the Court to make an informed

reassignment,

the

District

must

explain

which “issues of both law and fact are the same in the
related cases,” and how those common issues are outcome
determinative

to

both

cases.
- 6 -

See,

Lawrence

E.

Jaffe

Pension Plan v. Household Int’l, Inc., No. 02 C 5893, 2003
WL 21011757, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2003).

Because the

District has not adequately applied the relevant facts to
each of Local Rule 40.4(b)’s requirements, the Court denies
its Motion for Reassignment at this time.

See, Lawrence,

2003 WL 21011757, at *3 (refusing to “lower the bar for
pleading

under

LR

40.4(c),

which

requires

a

movant

to

explicitly articulate reasons that satisfy each of the four
LR 40.4(b) conditions.”).
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the District’s Motion
for Reassignment based on a finding of relatedness [ECF
No. 38] is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court

Dated:January 19, 2016

- 7 -