Spaedy v. Village of Romeoville
Plaintiff: Shannon Spaedy
Defendant: Village of Romeoville
Case Number: 1:2019cv06252
Filed: September 19, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: Thomas M Durkin
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Jobs
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 8, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 8, 2019 Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin:On the Court's own motion the 11/25/2019 status hearing is vacated and reset for 12/17/2019 at 09:00 AM. The joint status report is now due by 12/12/2019. Mailed notice (srn, )
October 8, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER: Joint status report due by 11/20/2019. Status hearing set for 11/25/2019 at 09:00 AM. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 10/8/2019:Mailed notice(srn, )
September 26, 2019 Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Village of Romeoville by John Edward Motylinski (Motylinski, John)
September 26, 2019 Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Village of Romeoville by Stephen H. DiNolfo (DiNolfo, Stephen)
September 19, 2019 Filing 6 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. (las, )
September 19, 2019 Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shannon Spaedy by Patrick Joseph Walsh (Walsh, Patrick)
September 19, 2019 Filing 4 REQUEST for Waiver of Service sent to Village of Romeoville on 09.19.19 by Plaintiff Shannon Spaedy. Waiver of service due by 10/21/2019. (Walsh, Patrick)
September 19, 2019 Filing 3 WAIVER of service returned unexecuted, filed by Shannon Spaedy. (Walsh, Patrick)
September 19, 2019 Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Walsh, Patrick)
September 19, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Shannon Spaedy ; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-16252631.(Walsh, Patrick)
September 19, 2019 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert. Case assignment: Random assignment. (ng, )

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: Spaedy v. Village of Romeoville
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Shannon Spaedy
Represented By: Patrick Joseph Walsh
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: Village of Romeoville
Represented By: Stephen H. DiNolfo
Represented By: John Edward Motylinski
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?