JP v. United States of America
| JP |
| United States of America |
| 1:2023cv01136 |
| April 3, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| James E Shadid |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 2271 Federal Tort Claims Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 14, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 27 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by United States of America. (Swett, Kathy) |
| Filing 26 NOTICE OF FILING OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Status Conference Proceedings held on 10/26/2023, before Judge Jonathan E. Hawley. Court Reporter/Transcriber J. Johnson, Telephone number 309-573-0378. Transcript purchased by:Hanna Lauritzen. IMPORTANT: The parties have seven (7) business days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. Within 21 days of the filing of the transcript, a Motion of Requested Redactions shall be e-filed with the Court. Access to this motion will be restricted to the Court and the attorneys of record in the case. If no such Notice and Motion are filed, the transcript may be made remotely, electronically available to the public, without redaction, 90 days from the date initially filed. Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may view the transcript at the Clerk's Office public terminal or contact the Court Reporter for purchase. Counsel are strongly urged to share this notice with all clients so that an informed decision about the inclusion of certain materials may be made. The responsibility for redacting these personal identifiers rests solely with counsel and the parties. The Clerk and Court Reporter will not review each transcript for compliance with this rule. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/22/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/4/2023. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/30/2024. (TK) |
| Filing 25 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [10/26/2023 01:28:45 PM]. File Size [ 6464 KB ]. Run Time [ 00:13:32 ]. (admin). |
| Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley: Parties present via telephone by Attys John Ellis, Hanna Lauritzen, and Matthaeus Martino-Weinhardt for Plaintiff and AUSA Kathy Swett for Defendant for Status Conference held on 10/26/2023. Discussion held regarding jurisdictional discovery. Parties directed to confer regarding setting a discovery schedule including a schedule for Defendant to produce discovery in similar cases and a response date for Plaintiff to respond. Proposed discovery plan to be filed by 11/16/23. If the parties agree on the schedule they can file a joint proposed schedule. If they are not in agreement, they should file separate plans for the Court's review siting their differences. (Tape #PRC: 1:28 p.m.) (FDS) |
TEXT ORDER: Status Conference set for 10/26/2023 at 1:30 PM via telephone before Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley. Counsel are to phone into conference by calling (551) 285-1373 and enter the Meeting ID: 16009516536 when prompted to do so Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 10/11/23. (WG)
|
|
Filing 24
ORDER Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 10/10/2023. The Court directs the parties to commence limited jurisdictional discovery as to whether Plaintiffs were separated due to the Family Separation Policy, as outlined in the Complaint, or on some other basis. The case is thus referred to Magistrate Judge Hawley to oversee discovery for this sole purpose. (See Full Order)(AEM)
|
| Filing 23 Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss. (AEM) Modified on 9/26/2023 (AEM). |
|
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 9/25/2023. Defendant has filed a Combined Motion #22 for Leave to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to its Motion to Dismiss in excess of the five-page limit set by Central District Local Rule 7.1(B)(4)(a). The Combined Motion is unopposed by Plaintiff's Counsel. [22 at 1]. Accordingly, the Combined Motion #22 is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to docket the Exhibit [22-1] as a separate entry titled Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss. (AEM)
|
| Filing 22 Consent MOTION for Leave to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Defendant United States of America. Responses due by 10/6/2023 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Reply to Response)(Swett, Kathy) |
| Filing 21 RESPONSE to Motion re #12 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Plaintiff JP. (Durie, Daralyn) |
|
TEXT ONLY ORDER: Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion #20 for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff is permitted to file a responsive memorandum of 40 pages or fewer. Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 8/24/2023. (MT)
|
| Filing 20 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by Plaintiff JP. Responses due by 9/6/2023 (Lauritzen, Hanna) |
|
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 8/23/2023. Plaintiff alerted the Clerk that Plaintiff's Motion #19 was filed under the PACER account of plaintiff's counsel Matthaeus Martino-Weinhardt but electronically signed by plaintiff's counsel Hanna M. Lauritzen, in violation of Local Rule 11.4(a)(2), and so asked that the Motion be struck so that they may refile it. Plaintiff's request is granted. The Clerk is directed to strike Plaintiff's Motion #19 and Plaintiff is given leave to refile it. (AEM)
|
| Filing 19 STRICKEN PER 8/23/23 TEXT ORDER Joint MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by Plaintiff JP. Responses due by 9/5/2023 (Martino-Weinhardt, Matthaeus) Modified on 8/23/2023 to strike.(AEM). |
| Filing 18 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Hanna M Lauritzen on behalf of JP (Lauritzen, Hanna) |
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Bethany D Bengfort on behalf of JP (Bengfort, Bethany) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Daralyn J. Durie on behalf of JP (Durie, Daralyn) |
|
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 8/11/2023. Plaintiff's Joint Motion #15 for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Defendant's Motion #12 to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Response is to be filed by August 31, 2023.(AEM)
|
| Set Deadline as to #12 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . Responses due by 8/31/2023 (JS) |
| Filing 15 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #12 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Plaintiff JP. Responses due by 8/24/2023 (Martino-Weinhardt, Matthaeus) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Matthaeus Martino-Weinhardt on behalf of JP (Martino-Weinhardt, Matthaeus) |
|
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 8/8/2023. Defendant United States of America has filed a Motion #8 for Leave to File Motion to Exceed Page Limits. In Support of Defendant's first Motion #8 , Defendant asserts that they seek to file an approximately 40 page long memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss the case. This case seeks damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the Plaintiff's separation from her daughter at the U.S.-Mexico border pursuant to then in-effect immigration policy. Defendant states that the additional pages are necessary to explain different reasons to support their motion to dismiss, including background, legal standards, and the applicable statutory framework. Defendant further indicates that they do not object to Plaintiff being granted the same leave for their Response. In light of the complexity of the issues at stake in this case, Defendant's Motion #8 for Leave to File Motion to Exceed Page Limits is GRANTED. Defendant has further filed a Motion #9 to Seal Documents. Plaintiff has been granted leave for a protective order and to proceed under pseudonyms in this matter. See Text Order Dated 4/4/2023. In connection with their motion to dismiss, Defendant has filed a copy of the criminal prosecution against Plaintiff in the Western District of Texas, which Defendant asserts is relevant to Plaintiff's claims and is referenced in the Complaint #1 . Defendant requests leave to file the relevant documents from her prosecution under seal in order to protect her anonymity. Defendant asserts that any references to the case within the Motion to Dismiss will not contain her full name or the case number. Defendant's Motion #9 to Seal Documents is GRANTED. (AEM)
|
| Filing 13 Memorandum in Support Thereof #12 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant United States of America. (Swett, Kathy) Modified on 8/7/2023 To Correct Docketing Event.(AEM). |
| Filing 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant United States of America. Responses due by 8/18/2023 (Swett, Kathy) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Service re #10 Sealed Document (Swett, Kathy) |
| Filing 10 +++ SEALED DOCUMENT.. (Swett, Kathy) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Seal Documents by Defendant United States of America. Responses due by 8/18/2023 (Swett, Kathy) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Exceed Page Limits by Defendant United States of America. Responses due by 8/16/2023 (Swett, Kathy) |
|
TEXT ORDER granting #7 Defendant's unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file responsive pleading to Plaintiff's #1 Complaint. Responsive pleadings to be filed by 8/31/2023. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 6/1/23. (WG)
|
| Filing 7 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, Set/Reset Deadlines , MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #1 Complaint by Defendant United States of America. Responses due by 6/14/2023 (Swett, Kathy) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: United States of America answer due 6/5/2023. (AEM) |
|
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 4/27/2023. Plaintiff filed two Affidavits #5 #6 of Service that should have been filed as summons returned executed. The Clerk is directed to correct this and set Defendants deadline to answer. (AEM)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines: United States of America answer due 6/13/2023. (AEM) |
| Filing 6 Summons Returned Executed by JP. (Ellis, John) Modified on 4/27/2023 To correct event.(AEM). |
| Filing 5 Summons Returned Executed by JP. (Ellis, John) Modified on 4/27/2023 to correct event. (AEM). |
| Remark: On 4/6/23, Plaintiff filed an Application for Refund of Electronic Filing Fee Receipt #AILCDC-4173701 due to a duplicative payment. The Application was granted and a refund of $402.00 was processed to the credit card used for the original transaction. (TK) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Justin DeLuca on behalf of JP (DeLuca, Justin) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to United States of America c/o Gregory Harris. (Attachments: #1 Merrick Garland)(AEM) |
|
TEXT ORDER granting #2 the Plaintiffs' Motion to Proceed Under Pseudonyms and for Protective Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 4/4/2023. (KZ)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Protective Order and to proceed under pseudonyms by Plaintiff JP. Responses due by 4/17/2023 (Ellis, John) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against United States of America ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AILCDC-4173703.), filed by JP.(Ellis, John) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Central 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.
