Lin et al v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM Order: Counsel has failed to comply with LR 5.2(f). Accordingly, plaintiffs' counsel in this case are ordered to pay a $100 fine forthwith, with the check to be made payable to "Clerk of the District Court" and to desig nate the number of this case. An initial status hearing is set at 9:00 a.m. on August 19, 2016, but because of the nature of the action this Court leaves it to plaintiffs' counsel to bring the matter on for hearing before that date if they may do so procedurally. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/1/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )

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

QING YUAN CAO (A089 224 801)
QUI HUI LIN (A095 100 929),
Plaintiffs,
v.
JEH JOHNSON, in his official capacity as
Secretary of Department of Homeland Security;
et al.,
Defendants.

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

Case No. 16 C 5997

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court's invariable practice whenever a newly filed lawsuit is assigned to its calendar
under our District Court's computerized random assignment system is (1) to review the
complaint within a few days after filing and (unless there is something in the complaint that
poses a jurisdictional problem or otherwise calls for immediate attention, in which event it issues
an appropriate sua sponte memorandum order) (2) to set a status hearing date as part of its
customary initial scheduling order. That practice, however, obviously depends on this Court
having been made aware of the lawsuit's filing, and that meshes with our District Court's
LR 5.2(f), which calls for the delivery to this Court's chambers of a paper copy of the complaint
within one business day after filing. 1

1

Actually LR 5.2(f) gives judges a "dealer's choice" as to whether they choose to
maintain paper files or, as most of the newer judges on the court have done, choose to depend on
electronic rather than paper recordkeeping. This Court has made it clear on its website that paper
copies are the order of the day in cases assigned to its calendar.

In this mandamus action plaintiffs' lead counsel is a New York lawyer, and his
unawareness of the need to deliver a Judge's Copy of the complaint in this action may perhaps be
understandable (although lawyers who engage in practice outside of the situs of their offices
ought to understand the need to familiarize themselves with local practice and procedures in such
other venues). But here the lead counsel has affiliated himself with a Chicago lawyer, who
certainly ought to be aware of this District Court's rules and procedures but simply dropped the
ball.
In any event, when counsel in a case fail to comply with LR 5.2(f) 2 for at least a week
and this Court learns of a case's filing in some other way, it imposes a $100 fine for such
noncompliance. Accordingly plaintiffs' counsel in this case are ordered to pay a $100 fine
forthwith, with the check to be made payable to "Clerk of the District Court" and to designate the
number of this case.
As for the action itself, United States governmental defendants are allowed more time for
responsive pleading than nongovernmental litigants. Hence this action is simply set for an initial
status hearing on at 9 a.m. August 19, 2016, but because of the nature of the action this Court
leaves it to plaintiffs' counsel to bring the matter on for hearing before that date if they may do so
procedurally.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: July 1, 2016

2

That LR applies to all filings in a case, not just the initial complaint.
-2-