Sterlinski v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago

Justia Dockets & Filings Seventh Circuit Illinois Northern District Sterlinski v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago

Sterlinski v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago

Plaintiff:	Stanislaw Sterlinski
Defendant:	The Catholic Bishop of Chicago
Case Number:	1:2016cv00596
Filed:	January 15, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Chicago Office
County:	Cook
Presiding Judge:	Edmond E. Chang
Nature of Suit:	Employment
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 23, 2018	Filing 69 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, Defendant's motion 42 for summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiff's cross-motion 55 is denied. Based on the record evidence, the ministerial exception does apply. A separate AO-450 judgment shall be entered. Status hearing of 08/23/2018 is vacated. Civil case terminated. Emailed notice(slb, )
August 23, 2016	Filing 23 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, the motion to dismiss 9 is granted, because the ministerial exception applies. But Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to try to fix t he complaint by 09/07/2016, so the dismissal is without prejudice for now. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by 09/07/2016, then the dismissal will convert to a dismissal with prejudice and judgment will be entered. The status hearing of 08/30/2016 is reset to 09/15/2016 at 9 a.m. Emailed notice(slb, )

Date Filed

Document Text

July 23, 2018

Filing 69 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, Defendant's motion 42 for summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiff's cross-motion 55 is denied. Based on the record evidence, the ministerial exception does apply. A separate AO-450 judgment shall be entered. Status hearing of 08/23/2018 is vacated. Civil case terminated. Emailed notice(slb, )

August 23, 2016

Filing 23 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, the motion to dismiss 9 is granted, because the ministerial exception applies. But Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to try to fix t he complaint by 09/07/2016, so the dismissal is without prejudice for now. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by 09/07/2016, then the dismissal will convert to a dismissal with prejudice and judgment will be entered. The status hearing of 08/30/2016 is reset to 09/15/2016 at 9 a.m. Emailed notice(slb, )

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sterlinski v. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Stanislaw Sterlinski
Represented By:	Barry Alfred Gomberg
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: The Catholic Bishop of Chicago
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.

Why Is My Information Online?