Montgomery v. National Association of Postal Supervisors
| Jean A. Montgomery |
| National Association of Postal Supervisors |
| 1:2015cv10840 |
| December 2, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Robert M. Dow |
| Fair Labor Standards Act |
| 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
216
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 3/31/2022. Plaintiff Jean Montgomery worked for the United States Postal Service (USPS) until she was removed from employment in 2012. Following her termination from USPS , Montgomery fought the removal decision in an administrative appeal to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). However, in 2013, the Administrative Judge (AJ) sustained the charges against Montgomery, as well as her removal. A three-judg e panel of the MSPB affirmed, and so did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Montgomery's unsuccessful challenge to USPS's removal decision forms the backdrop for the lawsuit now before this Court. Unable to upend USPS� 39;s decision in the administrative process or on appeal, Montgomery went on the offensive, filing a flurry of suits in federal court flowing from her employment with USPS, USPS's removal decision, and her unsuccessful appeals of the removal . Those suits allege that various actors involved in Montgomery's plightranging from the AJ who presided over her appeal, to a panel of Seventh Circuit judgesviolated her state, federal, and constitutional rights. To date, none of th ose suits have afforded Montgomery any relief. Now before this Court is one of the sole surviving legal actions. In this case, Montgomery takes issue with the quality and type of services she received from William Simpson, an advocate who represe nted her in the 2013 direct appeal to the MSPB. In a federal diversity lawsuit naming Simpson, Simpson's colleague (Charles Scialla), Simpson's employer (Scialla Associates, Inc.), and the association that hired Scialla Associates to rep resent Montgomery (the National Association of Postal Supervisors or NAPS), Montgomery alleges that Defendants pulled the wool over her eyes. According to Montgomery, Defendants breached their contract to provideand fraudulently misrepresented tha t she would receivethe services of a licensed attorney in the 2013 proceedings before the MSPB. They also allegedly provided subpar professional services and therefore committed professional malpractice. Defendants Simpson, Scialla, and Scialla As sociates have moved for summary judgment [167, 168] on the single claim remaining in this case: Montgomery's allegations of professional negligence for Defendants' performance before the MSPB. Because the Court agrees with Defendants tha t Plaintiff's claims are time barred and fail on the merits in any event, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment 167 and denies as moot several other pending motions 171 , 184 , 186 , and 204 . A final judgment consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 will issue on the federal claim. Civil case terminated. Emailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 8/29/2017. Mailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 12/7/2016. Mailed notice(cdh, )
|
|
Filing
8
WRITTEN OPINION entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 2/23/2016: This matter is set before the Court on Plaintiff Jean A. Montgomery response 7 to the Court's order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. (1) as untimely u nder the two-year statute of limitations that applies to actions brought under 18 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985; and (2) for failure to state a claim 6 . For the reasons explained below, the Court accepts Plaintiff's complaint and grants Plaintiff' s application to proceed in forma pauperis 4 . The Clerk of Court is directed to (1) file Plaintiff's complaint 1 , (2) issue summons for service of the complaint on Defendants Scialla Associates, Inc. and the National Association of Postal Su pervisors by the U.S. Marshal and (3) send Plaintiff two blank USM-285 service forms, a magistrate judge consent form, filing instructions, and a copy of this order. Plaintiff must return the completed USM-285 service forms to the Court within 35 days. The Marshal is appointed to serve the Defendants, but will not attempt service unless and until the required forms are received. Mailed Notice.(gcy, )
|
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
| Search for this case: Montgomery v. National Association of Postal Supervisors | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jean A. Montgomery | |
| 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: National Association of Postal Supervisors | |
| 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.
