Bolden v. Pesavento et al.
Filing
75
MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for judgment - Motion for Entry of Guaranty of Satisfaction of Judgment (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Shpigel, Elan)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
EDDIE L. BOLDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, MICHAEL BAKER,
JOSEPH BARNES, EDWARD HICKS,
MICHAEL KILL, JAMES OLIVER,
ANGELO PESAVENTO, MICHAEL
ROWAN, EDWARD SIWEK,
BARBARA TEMPLE and AS-YET
UNKNOWN CURRENT OR FORMER
EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF
CHICAGO,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:17-cv-00417
Hon. Milton I. Shadur
Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox
DEFENDANT CITY OF CHICAGO’S GUARANTY OF SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT
Defendant City of Chicago (the “City”) hereby guarantees the following:
1.
Should Plaintiff Eddie L. Bolden (“Bolden”) secure judgment against Michael
Baker, Joseph Barnes, Edward Hicks, Michael Kill, James Oliver, Angelo Pesavento, Michael
Rowan, Edward Siwek, or Barbara Temple (the “Defendant Officers”) on his 42 U.S.C. section
1983 claim for any judgment of compensatory damages, including costs and reasonable
attorneys’ fees, then Plaintiff, by operation of this Guarantee, may recover any such judgment
directly from the City. This Guarantee is exclusive of such fees and costs that may be
attributable to an award of punitive damages against the Defendant Officers.
2.
The City also agrees to pay nominal damages (not to exceed one dollar) to which
Plaintiff may be entitled.
3.
This Guarantee is unconditional and irrevocable.
Dated: May 19, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF CHICAGO
By: /s/ Elan Shpigel
John F. Gibbons (Attorney No. 06190493)
gibbonsj@gtlaw.com
Tiffany S. Fordyce (Attorney No. 235063)
fordycet@gtlaw.com
Elan Shpigel (Attorney No. 6321514)
shpigele@gtlaw.com
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Tel: (312) 456-8400
Attorneys for Defendant City of Chicago
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?