Martensen v. Chicago Stock Exchange

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM Order: After this Court dismissed the Complaint and this action, brought by Jeffrey Martensen ("Martensen") under the section of the Dodd-Frank Act ("Act") prohibiting retaliatory conduct, because Martensen did not qualify as a "whistleblower" as defined by the Act, Martensen filed a motion to vacate the dismissal order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 60(b) and a motion for leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) (Dkt. No. 21) but two days later (on July 5) Martensen's counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to this District Court's LR 83.17 (Dkt. No. 22) together with an affidavit in support of that motion (Dkt. No. 23) that cast critical doubt on what Martensen is now seeking to do. In part Martensen has now asserted that he indeed a "statutory whistleblower" because he assertedly had "prior contact with the SEC, which included contact via the SEC website and in person discussions" but he has not provided a "proposed amendment to the complaint detailing plaintiff's prior interaction with SEC." Accordingly this Court is not in a position to rule on Martensen's current Dkt. No. 21 motion without Martensen's submission of his proposed amended complaint. Hence he is ordered to submit that proposed amended complaint on or before July 31, 2017, failing which his current motion must be denied. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 7/11/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

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

JEFFREY MARTENSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHICAGO STOCK EXCHANGE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 17 C 1494

MEMORANDUM ORDER
After this Court dismissed the Complaint and this action, brought by Jeffrey Martensen
("Martensen") under the section of the Dodd-Frank Act ("Act") prohibiting retaliatory conduct,
because Martensen did not qualify as a "whistleblower" as defined by the Act, Martensen filed a
motion to vacate the dismissal order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 60(b) and a motion for
leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) (Dkt. No. 21) but two days later (on July 5)
Martensen's counsel filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to this District Court's LR 83.17 (Dkt.
No. 22) together with an affidavit in support of that motion (Dkt. No. 23) that cast critical doubt
on what Martensen is now seeking to do. In part Martensen has now asserted that he indeed a
"statutory whistleblower" because he assertedly had "prior contact with the SEC, which included
contact via the SEC website and in person discussions" but he has not provided a "proposed
amendment to the complaint detailing plaintiff's prior interaction with SEC."
Accordingly this Court is not in a position to rule on Martensen's current Dkt. No. 21
motion without Martensen's submission of his proposed amended complaint. Hence he is

ordered to submit that proposed amended complaint on or before July 31, 2017, failing which his
current motion must be denied.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: July 11, 2017

-2-