Eiserman & Assocs., LLC v. Rosen, No. 13 C 1315, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Zambezia Film Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-33, No. 13 C 1323, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Zambezia Film Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-60, No. 13 C 1741, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Shoppertrak RCT Corp. v. Objectvideo, No. 13 C 1323, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
In each of these cases, Judge Shadur entered similar orders requiring the plaintiff to provide the Court a courtesy copy of its newly filed complaint within one week of the date of the opinion. The Clerk of the Court recently ended its practice of delivering each chambers a courtesy hard copy of any new complaints that it drew. As such, the Court had stopped exempting counsel from its Local Rule 5.2(f) obligation to provide copies of complaints. Going forward, counsel were required to file courtesy copies of complaints. Courtesy copies of complaints are critical in order to allow the Court to control its docket by:
- Reviewing the contents of each complaint;
- Issuing sua sponte orders as necessary regarding the complaint;
- Setting an initial status; and
- Creating a “bible sheet” for the binder the Court maintains as to each case before it.
OpticsPlanet, Inc. v. Opticsale, Inc., No. 09 C 7934, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur granted plaintiff OpticsPlanet’s motion for sanctions based upon defendants’ failed attempt to disqualify OpticsPlanet’s individual counsel and its law firm. The Court noted that the attempted disqualification was “particularly egregious,” but awarded only fees, not an additional fine to avoid any appearance of a punitive award. The Court also “urged” the parties to use a less formal process than what is required by Local Rule 54.3 to avoid “fees on fees.”
Maclean-Fogg Co. v. Guangzhou Hotlink Hardware Co, Ltd., No. 12 C 6796, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur sua sponte struck defendant’s answer for multiple deficiencies. Initially, it was improperly signed by corporate defendant’s non-lawyer owner. No non-lawyer can represent a party in federal Court. Additionally, the answer had the following deficiencies:
- The answer was not made in numbered paragraphs corresponding to the complaint’s paragraphs pursuant to Local Rule 10.1.
- In several places, the answer wrongly states that no answer is necessary because statements are legal conclusions. Answers must address even legal conclusions.
- While lack of information and belief is deemed a denial, defendant cannot deny statements for which it lacks information and belief.