Douglas v. Sauk Village, Illinois et al
| Sonya Douglas |
| Sauk Village, Illinois, Arnold Coleman, Aretha Burns, Sherry Jasinski, Debbie Williams, Gary Bell and Diane Sapp |
| 1:2023cv14559 |
| October 5, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343 Violation of Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 MOTION by Defendants Gary Bell, Aretha Burns, Arnold Coleman, Sherry Jasinski, Diane Sapp, Debbie Williams for extension of time to file answer regarding motion for miscellaneous relief #9 , notice of motion #8 , extension of time,, motion for extension of time to file answer, #7 , notice of motion, #10 2nd Amended AGREED (Glassman, Eydie) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Motion by Eydie Rachel Glassman, I for presentment of extension of time,, motion for extension of time to file answer, #7 , motion for miscellaneous relief #9 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/12/2023 at 08:30 AM. (Glassman, Eydie) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Defendants Gary Bell, Aretha Burns, Arnold Coleman, Sherry Jasinski, Diane Sapp, Debbie WilliamsMotion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead AMENDED (Glassman, Eydie) |
| Filing 8 Certain Defendants' NOTICE of Motion by Eydie Rachel Glassman, I for presentment of extension of time,, motion for extension of time to file answer, #7 before Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/12/2023 at 08:30 AM. (Glassman, Eydie) |
| Filing 7 MOTION by Defendants Gary Bell, Aretha Burns, Arnold Coleman, Sherry Jasinski, Diane Sapp, Debbie Williams for extension of time , MOTION by Defendants Gary Bell, Aretha Burns, Arnold Coleman, Sherry Jasinski, Diane Sapp, Debbie Williams for extension of time to file answer (Glassman, Eydie) |
| Filing 6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Gary Bell, Aretha Burns, Arnold Coleman, Sherry Jasinski, Diane Sapp, Debbie Williams by Eydie Rachel Glassman, I (Glassman, Eydie) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: On review of the status report, R. 4, service was accomplished variously on 10/24/2023 and 10/25/2023. No answer or response to the complaint has been filed. The Court warns the Defendants that default may be sought by the Plaintiff absent a prompt motion for extension. The Plaintiff shall mail this order to the last known address of the Defendants. The tracking status hearing of 12/01/2023 is reset to 12/22/2023 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Instead, the parties shall file the joint initial status report (see R. 3-1) by 12/15/2023, or the Plaintiff shall file a status report if the Defendants have not appeared. Emailed notice (mw, ) |
| Filing 4 STATUS Report Service of Process by Sonya Douglas (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Service of Process, #2 Affidavit Service of Process, #3 Affidavit Service of Process, #4 Affidavit Service of Process, #5 Affidavit Service of Process, #6 Affidavit Service of Process, #7 Affidavit Service of Process)(Davis, Jerome) |
| Filing 3 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Initial tracking status hearing set for 12/01/2023 at 8:30 a.m. to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). Instead, the Court will set the case schedule after reviewing the written status report. The parties must file a joint initial status report with the content described in the attached status report requirements by 11/22/2023. Plaintiff must still file the report even if Defendants have not responded to requests to craft a joint report. If not all Defendants have been served, then Plaintiff must complete the part of the report on the progress of service. Also, counsel (or the parties, if proceeding pro se) must carefully review Judge Chang's Case Management Procedures, available online at ilnd.uscourts.gov (navigate to Judges / District Judges / Judge Edmond E. Chang). Because the Procedures are occasionally revised, counsel (or the party, if proceeding pro se) must read them anew even if the counsel or the party has appeared before Judge Chang in other cases. Emailed notice (Attachments: #1 Status Report Requirements) (mw, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Gary Bell, Aretha Burns, Arnold Coleman, Sherry Jasinski, Diane Sapp, Sauk Village, Illinois, Debbie Williams (mcp, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Davis, Jerome) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Sonya Douglas; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-21192705.(Davis, Jerome) |
| 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. (mcp, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (mcp, ) |
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.
