Sutton v. Kleen
| Mattie Sutton |
| Kellie Kleen |
| 1:2023cv01444 |
| December 12, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Jonathan E Hawley |
| James E Shadid |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal- Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 RESPONSE to Motion re #5 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendant Kellie Kleen. (Swett, Kathy) |
TEXT ONLY ORDER entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 1/9/2024 : Plaintiff has filed a Letter #5 informing the Court that he wishes to voluntarily dismiss his case, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Under Rule 41(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may "dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Defendant does not object to dismissal of the case. #6 . The Court finds dismissal to be in accordance with Rule 41, and therefore directs the Clerk to close this case. And, in light of Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss #2 is denied as moot.(BMG)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION to Voluntarily Dismiss by Plaintiff Mattie Sutton. Responses due by 1/19/2024. (BMG) |
| Filing 4 RULE 12(C) NOTICE entered re #3 MOTION to Dismiss Memorandum in Support (AEM) |
| Filing 3 MEMORANDUM in Support RE #2 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Kellie Kleen. Responses due by 1/5/2024 (Swett, Kathy) Modified on 12/28/2023 to correct filing event.(JS). |
| Filing 2 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Kellie Kleen. Responses due by 1/5/2024 (Swett, Kathy) |
|
TEXT ORDER Entered by Judge James E. Shadid on 12/13/2023. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's notice of removal. #1 . The Defendant is ordered to respond to Plaintiff's petition [1-2] on or before December 22, 2023, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2). As part of Defendant's responsive pleading, Defendant is directed to provide further briefing as to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Ruppel v. CBS Corp., 701 F.3d 1176, 1180 (7th Cir. 2012) (defendants must raise a "a colorable federal defense" for removal to be proper under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) (citing Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 13234 (1989)). (AEM)
|
| Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Responses due by 12/22/2023. (AEM) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Woodford County, case number 2023OP000191, filed by Kellie Kleen. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit)(AEM) |
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
| Search for this case: Sutton v. Kleen | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mattie Sutton | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Kellie Kleen | |
| Represented By: | Gregory K Harris |
| Represented By: | Kathy Swett |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
