Awalt v. Marketti et al
| Elizabeth Awalt |
| Terry Marketti, Melanie Van Cleave, Patrick Sealock, Matthew Walker, County of Grundy, Illinois, Duane McComas, Unknown Grundy County Correctional Officers and Unknown Medical Personnel |
| 1:2011cv06142 |
| September 2, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Grundy |
| Virginia M. Kendall |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
643
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. For the foregoing reasons, the Court awards Plaintiff's counsel a total of $3,172,650.00 in fees, and $106,477.72 in expenses, for a grand total award of $3,279,127.72. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 5/23/2018:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
506
MOTION by Defendant Dr. Stephen Cullinan for judgment as Matter of Law (Salemi, Scott)
|
|
Filing
451
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: All motions in limine are ruled on in accordance with this order. 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 380 381 382 384 385 386 387 391 392 393 397 399 410 415 Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 7/15/2015:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
421
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order.For the foregoing reasons, the County Defendants motion to bifurcate trial,R. 288, and the Medical Defendants motion to bifurcate trial, R. 290, are granted. Despite the need to bifurcate the trial for the reasons stated, the same jury will hear both the evidence against the individual defendants and the Entity Defendants. The individual defendants will be tried first, and after the jury has returned verdicts as to the individual defendants, the same jury will then hear the additional evidence necessary to try the Entity Defendants. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 12/8/2014:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
412
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order:For the foregoing reasons, the County Defendants motion for summaryjudgment, R. 309, and the Medical Defendants motion for summary judgment, R.312, are denied in part, granted in part, and continued in part.The County Def endants motion for summary judgment on Counts I, III, IV,VII, VIII, X, and XII is denied, except that the County and Sheriffs Offices liability under Count I cannot be predicated upon a failure to implement a continuous quality improvement program, a failure to properly wean detainees off of medication, or a theory that Nurse Clauson possessed policy-making authority. The County Defendants motion for summary judgment on Counts II, V and VI is granted. The Medical Defendants' motion for summ ary judgment on Counts, I, III, IV, VII, VIII, IX and XII is denied, except that CHC/HPL's liability under Count I cannot be predicated upon a failure to implement a continuous quality improvement program, a failure to properly wean detainees of f of medication, or a theory that Nurse Clauson possessed policy-making authority. The Medical Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Counts II, V, and VI is granted. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 11/24/2014:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
147
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/17/2012.Mailed notice(tsa, )
|
|
Filing
138
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 10/29/2012.(tsa, )
|
|
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 4/9/2012.Mailed notice(tsa, )
|
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.
