McLaughlin v. Progress Rail Services Corp. et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, granting #4 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Rick Harris and directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 7/1/2014. (jdh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CHARLES MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 14-cv-456-JPG-SCW PROGRESS RAIL SERVICES CORP. and RICK HARRIS, Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on defendant Rick Harris’ motion to dismiss the retaliatory discharge claim against him based on Buckner v. Atlantic Plant Maintenance, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 565, 570 (Ill. 1998), which held that the only proper defendant in an Illinois retaliatory discharge claim is the plaintiff’s former employer, not his former supervisor (Doc. 4). Plaintiff Charles McLaughlin has responded that he does not object to dismissal of Harris based on Buckner (Doc. 8). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Harris’ motion to dismiss, DISMISSES with prejudice McLaughlin’s retaliatory discharge claim against Harris and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case. The Court further finds that Harris was fraudulently joined in this action because there is no possibility that McLaughlin could state a cause of action against him. See Gottlieb v. Westin Hotel Co., 990 F.2d 323, 327 (7th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, his citizenship, which is the same as McLaughlin’s, will be disregarded in determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See id. Because McLaughlin and defendant Progress Rail Services Corp. are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, excluding interest and costs, the Court has diversity jurisdiction to hear this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 1, 2014 s/J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE

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?