Novak v. Litchfield Cavo, LLP et al
| Michael J. Novak |
| Guth Mediations, Inc., Laura L. Milnichuk, Carrie A. Durkin, Alan I. Becker, Litchfield Cavo, LLP and Gregory P. Guth |
| 1:2014cv03649 |
| May 19, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Robert M. Dow |
| Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated, the Court grants Defendants' motions to dismiss [16, 26], and denies as moot the Litchfield Cavo Defendants' motion to strike 19 . The Court also grants Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply 37 . Plaintiff's Complaint 7 is dismissed. Although it appears unlikely that Plaintiff can cure the deficiencies noted above, in an abundance of caution and given Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will allow P laintiff until January 20, 2015 to file an amended complaint if he believes that he can overcome the lack of standing apparent on the basis of the allegations of his prior complaint. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by January 20, 2015, the Court will enter a final judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 12/22/2014. Mailed notice(tbk, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
