Osmolski v. Walsh Construction Company et al
Plaintiff: Karen Osmolski
Defendant: City Of Chicago, Walsh Construction Company II, LLC and Walsh Construction Company
Case Number: 1:2018cv04889
Filed: July 17, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office: Chicago Office
County: Will
Presiding Judge: Edmond E Chang
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 13, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 13, 2018 Filing 20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of the fully briefed motion #10 to remand, the status hearing of 09/14/2018 is reset to 10/26/2018 at 8:30 a.m.Emailed notice (slb, )
August 27, 2018 Filing 19 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: In light of the Court's trial schedule, the status hearing of 08/30/2018 is reset to 09/14/2018 at 8:45 AM.Emailed notice (slb, )
August 10, 2018 Filing 18 MAIL RETURNED, for document #13 sent to Philip P. Terrazzino returned as undeliverable, return to sender. Re-mailed to Tomasik Kotin Kasserman, LLC, at 161 North Clark Street Suite 3050 Chicago, IL 60601. (yap, )
August 10, 2018 Filing 17 RESPONSE by Karen Osmolskiin Support of MOTION by Plaintiff Karen Osmolski to remand #10 (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(McKay, James)
August 3, 2018 Filing 16 NOTICE by Walsh Construction Company re response in opposition to motion #15 (Miller, Christopher)
August 3, 2018 Filing 15 RESPONSE by Walsh Construction Companyin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Karen Osmolski to remand #10 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Miller, Christopher)
July 31, 2018 Filing 14 MAIL RETURNED for document #8 sent to Philip P Terrazzino returned as undeliverable, return to sender. Attorney contacted and directed to file a Notification of Change of Address with the Clerk's Office. Re-mailed to 161 N. Clark Street Suite 3050 Chicago, IL 60601. (sxb, )
July 20, 2018 Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: With regard to Plaintiff's motion #10 to remand, the Court did have similar questions when reviewing the Second Amended Complaint and planned to raise the jurisdictional issue at the initial status hearing. Now that the remand motion #10 has been filed, however, Defendants shall respond to the remand motion by 08/03/2018. Plaintiff's reply due by 08/10/2018. The dismissal motion #6 briefing schedule is vacated for now. On the motion #11 for sanctions, because the removal was filed on 07/17/2018, by definition the 21-day waiting period cannot possibly be satisfied yet. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). So the motion #11 is denied without prejudice. But the 07/19/2018 date of filing (the filing itself was improper per Rule 11(c)(2)) is now deemed to be the waiting period start-date under Rule 11(c)(2). The Court also notes that if the remand motion is granted, or the removal notice withdrawn, it might be that the proper place to ask for sanctions is the state court, which will have a much better sense of the trial preparation. The status hearing of 07/25/2018 is reset to 08/30/2018 at 10:30 a.m., and the joint initial status report requirement is vacated for now. Emailed notice (slb, )
July 19, 2018 Filing 12 NOTICE of Motion by James Patrick McKay, Jr for presentment of motion to remand #10 , motion for sanctions #11 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/23/2018 at 08:30 AM. (McKay, James)
July 19, 2018 Filing 11 MOTION by Plaintiff Karen Osmolski for sanctions (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(McKay, James)
July 19, 2018 Filing 10 MOTION by Plaintiff Karen Osmolski to remand (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(McKay, James)
July 18, 2018 Filing 9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Karen Osmolski by James Patrick McKay, Jr (Attachments: #1 Notice of Filing)(McKay, James)
July 18, 2018 Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The 07/23/23018 notice on Defendants' motion to dismiss #6 the ADA claim is vacated, and the Court will set a briefing schedule at the initial status hearing. The initial status hearing is set for 07/25/2018 at 9:30 a.m., with the joint initial status report due on 07/23/2018.Emailed notice (Attachments: #1 Status Report Requirements) (slb, )
July 18, 2018 Filing 7 (Contested) NOTICE of Motion by Christopher T. Miller for presentment of motion to dismiss #6 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 7/23/2018 at 08:30 AM. (Miller, Christopher)
July 18, 2018 Filing 6 MOTION by Defendants City Of Chicago, Walsh Construction Company to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Miller, Christopher)
July 18, 2018 Filing 5 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (sxb, )
July 18, 2018 Filing 4 MAILED Notice of Removal letter to counsel of record. (sxb, )
July 18, 2018 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. (ec, )
July 17, 2018 Filing 3 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Miller, Christopher)
July 17, 2018 Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants City Of Chicago, Walsh Construction Company II, LLC by Christopher T. Miller (Miller, Christopher)
July 17, 2018 Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from Cook County, case number (2015 L 010343) filed by City Of Chicago, Walsh Construction Company II, LLC Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-14710739. (Miller, Christopher)

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: Osmolski v. Walsh Construction Company et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Karen Osmolski
Represented By: Daniel M. Kotin
Represented By: Philip P Terrazzino
Represented By: James Patrick McKay, Jr.
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: City Of Chicago
Represented By: Christopher T. Miller
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: Walsh Construction Company II, LLC
Represented By: Christopher T. Miller
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: Walsh Construction Company
Represented By: Christopher T. Miller
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?