Farris et al v. The City of Chicago et al
| JOSHUA FARRIS and KAREN HOLLIS |
| The City of Chicago, Officer Nicu Tohatan, Star No. 18703, Officer Mario Fuentes, Star No. 9793, Officer Cynthia Garcia, Star No. 9797, Officer Nicu Tohatan, Officer Mario Fuentes and Officer Cynthia Garcia |
| 1:2022cv01729 |
| April 4, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Z Lee |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead is granted to and including June 24. 2022 #12 . (ca, ) |
| Filing 12 MOTION by Defendants Mario Fuentes, Cynthia Garcia, The City of Chicago, Nicu Tohatan for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint #1 (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service)(Battle, Kenneth) |
| Filing 11 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Mario Fuentes, Cynthia Garcia, The City of Chicago, Nicu Tohatan by Alexis D. M. Carr (Carr, Alexis) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:Minute order #9 is corrected: The Court has reviewed the status report. The Court enters the following fact discovery schedule. The parties are to exchange Rule 26(a) initial disclosures by 6/6/22 and initial written discovery requests by 7/8/22. The deadline for the amendment of pleadings or joinder of parties is 9/5/22. All fact discovery must be completed by 1/16/23. The Court orders the parties to file a joint written status report by 9/20/22. The report, which shall be as concise as possible, shall set forth: (1) the current deadlines imposed by the Court and whether the matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge in any fashion (e.g., for discovery supervision; for resolution of a motion; for settlement; etc.); (2) the progress of discovery, if discovery is ongoing; (3) the status of briefing on unresolved motions, if any; (4) whether the parties have engaged or are engaging in settlement discussions and the status of those discussions; (5) for cases without any future court dates, an agreed proposed schedule; (6) for cases that have future court dates and if the parties believe there is good cause to extend the current deadlines, a proposed amended schedule and the basis for the request; (7) a request for any agreed action that the Court can take without a hearing; (8) and whether the parties believe a telephonic hearing or in-person hearing is necessary within the next 60 days, and, if so, the issue(s) that warrants discussion and the parties' respective positions. In light of this order, the status hearing previously set for 5/19/22 is stricken. (ca, ) |
| Filing 9 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:The Court has reviewed the status report. The Court enters the following fact discovery schedule. The parties are to exchange Rule 26(a) initial disclosures by 6/6/22 and initial written discovery requests by 6/8/22. The deadline for the amendment of pleadings or joinder of parties is 9/5/22. All fact discovery must be completed by 1/16/23. The Court orders the parties to file a joint written status report by 9/20/22. The report, which shall be as concise as possible, shall set forth: (1) the current deadlines imposed by the Court and whether the matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge in any fashion (e.g., for discovery supervision; for resolution of a motion; for settlement; etc.); (2) the progress of discovery, if discovery is ongoing; (3) the status of briefing on unresolved motions, if any; (4) whether the parties have engaged or are engaging in settlement discussions and the status of those discussions; (5) for cases without any future court dates, an agreed proposed schedule; (6) for cases that have future court dates and if the parties believe there is good cause to extend the current deadlines, a proposed amended schedule and the basis for the request; (7) a request for any agreed action that the Court can take without a hearing; (8) and whether the parties believe a telephonic hearing or in-person hearing is necessary within the next 60 days, and, if so, the issue(s) that warrants discussion and the parties' respective positions. In light of this order, the status hearing previously set for 5/19/22 is stricken. (ca, ) |
| Filing 8 STATUS Report Initial Joint (Corrected) by Joshua Farris (Sadelski, Peter) |
| Filing 7 STATUS Report Initial Joint by Joshua Farris (Sadelski, Peter) |
| Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Mario Fuentes, Cynthia Garcia, The City of Chicago, Nicu Tohatan by Michele J. Braun (Braun, Michele) |
| Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Mario Fuentes, Cynthia Garcia, The City of Chicago, Nicu Tohatan by Kenneth M. Battle (Battle, Kenneth) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:A Rule 16 initial status hearing is set for 5/19/22 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are directed to file a joint initial status report by 5/13/22. The report should comply with the requirements for initial joint status reports set forth in the Initial Status Conference standing order, which can be found on the Court's website. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related General Orders, the Court finds that it is necessary to conduct the status hearing via telephone conference. The call-in number is 888-273-3658 and the access code is 1637578. Counsel of record will receive a separate email at least 12 hours prior to the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions on how to join the call. All persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in court-imposed sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. All participants should review the Court's standing order regarding telephone conferences that is on Judge Lee's website, which can be found at: https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-info.aspx?4Qf5zc8loCI5U7rfMP9DHw==. (ca, ) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs JOSHUA FARRIS, KAREN HOLLIS by Piotr Tadeusz Sadelski (Sadelski, Piotr) |
| Filing 2 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs JOSHUA FARRIS, KAREN HOLLIS by Edward M. Fox (Fox, Edward) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by JOSHUA FARRIS ; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-19309610. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fox, Edward) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (jxj, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Z. Lee. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jxj, ) |
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 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.
