Tyagi et al v. Sheldon et al
| Sanjay Tyagi, Alka Jagatia and A. T. |
| George Sheldon, Carolyn K Ross, Marko I Djurisic, Donald Jonker, Lawrence Alberg, Deanna Large, Nora Harms Pavelski, Stevie Lemon, Eraina Ross Burleson, Marisol Rubio, Sylvia Torres Stephens, Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Ann & Robert H Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago Foundation, Pediatrics Faculty Foundation Inc., Children's Hospital of Chicago Medical Center, Lurie Children's Medical Group LLC, Leon Epstein, Alma Bicknese, Jenna Krueger, Melissa Cirrillo, Lauren Marsillio and Rana Mafee |
| 1:2016cv11236 |
| December 9, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Thomas M. Durkin |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 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
402
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Defendants' motion for sanctions 392 is granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice. Motions 389 278 are denied as moot. If plaintiffs wish to appeal this order of dismissal, they must file a notice o f appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit with the Clerk of the Court of the United States District Court, 219 South Dearborn Street, 20th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Yapan v. Marvin Holding Co., 2014 WL 242839, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2014). Any notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of judgment on 11/7/2018. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 11/7/2018:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
200
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth in the memorandum opinion and Order, the following defendants are dismissed from this case: Former-Director Sheldon in his individual and official capacities, Judge Djurisic, Large, Pavelski, Le mon, Stephens, Epstein, Bicknese, Cirrillo, Mafee, Marsillio, the John Doe defendants, the corporate defendants, and Lurie Hospital. The following claims are dismissed: under § 1983, the First Amendmentclaim, the Fourth Amendment claims arising from the incidents at Lurie Hospitaland at A.T.'s public school, the Sixth Amendment claim, and the FourteenthAmendment procedural and substantive due process claims; the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim; any medical malpractice claim; and all equitable claims (either because the plaintiffs' lack standing or because allegations of unconstitutional policies are conclusory). The plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment right to choose mode of medical treatment clai ms, the Fourth Amendment claim based on the incident at A.T.'s public school, the SixthAmendment claim, the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim, thenegligent infliction of emotional distress claim, and claims related to "medi calkidnapping" are dismissed with prejudice. All other claims are dismissed withoutprejudice. If the plaintiffs believe they can cure the defects identified in this opinion,they may move to file an amended complaint. Any such motion should be fi led within 21 days of the date of this ruling and should attach the proposed amended complaint and a memorandum of no more than five pages explaining how the new complaint cures the defects. The following claims survive defendants' motions to di smiss: the plaintiffs' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims under § 1983 arising from the incidents at the plaintiffs' home against defendants Burleson and Rubio in their individual capacities, and the plaintiffs' intentional in fliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims against Burleson and Rubio to the extent they are coextensive with the remaining § 1983 claims.In addition to the pending motions to dismiss 115 , 117 , this Opinionand Order also resolves a number of other motions pending in this case. Theplaintiffs' motion for additional service of summons and complaint by alternative means 78 is denied as moot. The plaintiffs' motions to file opposing memoranda of law in connec tion with several of the defendants' responses 159 is granted. The motion to intervene 155 pertains to medical kidnapping and is dismissed for lack of standing. The motion to declare the Adoption and Safe Families Act unconstitutional 156 , related intervention motion 155 , and accompanying declaration of Kathleen Clark 186 are likewise dismissed for lack of standing. The motion to declare Keppra dangerous 164 , related letter from Kathleen Clark 187 , motion to appoint an exper t 167 , and motion to order production of medical records 169 are stricken as contrary to this Court's earlier ruling 122 . The motion to declare the DCFS practice of seizing, searching, and interrogating children at public schools without p arental consent and in the absence of exigent circumstances unconstitutional 177 is dismissed for the same reason the Court has dismissed Claims 2 and 7 of the complaint. The "Motion to Order Defendants George Sheldon and Deanna Large to remov e Plaintiffs' names from Illinois SCR Register" 95 , the Lurie defendants' motion to strike non-compliant filings 182 , and the plaintiffs' Motion to Declare the SCR Unconstitutional 139 are all denied for the reasons set fort h above. The DCFS defendants' motion to leave to file certain records under seal in conjunction with their response to the plaintiffs' Motion to Declare the SCR Unconstitutional 152 is granted. Status hearing set for 10/19/2017 at 09:00 AM. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 9/18/2017:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
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.
