Waldow v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM Order: This Court hereby orders: 1. that the missing copy of the response to Motion 10 be delivered to this Court's chambers forthwith (in all events not later than June 1) and 2. that such delivery be accompanied by a check for 36;100 payable to the"Clerk of the District Court" by reason of the LR 5.2(f) violation, a requirement foreshadowed by the opening provision in this Court's website. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/27/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
BRANDEN A. WALDOW,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD
COMPANY formally d/b/a CANADIAN
NATIONAL/ILLINOIS CENTRAL
RAILROAD COMPANY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16 C 2632
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Although the response (Dkt. No. 14) by plaintiff Branden Waldow ("Waldow") to the
motion (Dkt. No. 10) by defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company to dismiss Count I in this
action for the asserted lack of subject matter jurisdiction was filed on May 24, 2016, Waldow's
counsel has ignored the explicit directive of this District Court's LR 5.2(f) that requires the
delivery of a paper copy of a filed document for the assigned judge's use within one business day
after filing. 1 To underscore the importance of that requirement to the case management
procedures followed by this Court, the first paragraph in its website repeats the requirement,
______________________________
1
In an effort to monitor compliance with that requirement (which has regrettably not
always been adhered to by lawyers), both this Court's judicial assistant and its courtroom deputy
maintain lists of all deliveries by counsel to this Court's chambers. Although that recordkeeping
is intended to be error-free, if counsel here were to establish that what is said in this
memorandum order is in error, the sanction called for by this memorandum order will of course
be rescinded.
adding that a delivery to this Court's chambers on the date of filing, if possible, would be
appreciated (although such earlier delivery is not essential).
In this instance counsel's noncompliance is particularly troubling, because this Court had
earlier established a June 3 status hearing date as well as having given Waldow a full three
weeks to respond to the dismissal motion. Accordingly this Court hereby orders:
1.
that the missing copy of the response be delivered to this Court's chambers
forthwith (in all events not later than June 1) and
2.
that such delivery be accompanied by a check for $100 payable to the
"Clerk of the District Court" by reason of the LR 5.2(f) violation, a
requirement foreshadowed by the opening provision in this Court's
website.
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: May 27, 2016
-2-
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?