Udovich v. EssilorLuxottica S.A. et al
| Nedenia Udovich |
| EssilorLuxottica S.A., Luxottica Group S.p.A., Essilor International SAS, EssilorLuxottica USA Inc., Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., Essilor of America Holding Company, Inc., Luxottica Of America, Inc., Essilor of America, Inc., EyeMed Vision Care, LLC and Vision Source, LLC |
| 1:2023cv15854 |
| November 10, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Anti-Trust |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to #Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates)#, any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this #LINK# will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/28/2023: Mailed notice. (tg, ) |
| Filing 12 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Nedenia Udovich. Vision Source, LLC waiver sent on 11/20/2023, answer due 1/19/2024. (Hogan, Brian) |
| Filing 11 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Nedenia Udovich. Luxottica Of America, Inc. waiver sent on 11/20/2023, answer due 1/19/2024. (Hogan, Brian) |
| Filing 10 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Nedenia Udovich. EyeMed Vision Care, LLC waiver sent on 11/20/2023, answer due 1/19/2024. (Hogan, Brian) |
| Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Nedenia Udovich. EssilorLuxottica USA Inc. waiver sent on 11/20/2023, answer due 1/19/2024. (Hogan, Brian) |
| Filing 8 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by Nedenia Udovich. Essilor of America, Inc. waiver sent on 11/20/2023, answer due 1/19/2024. (Hogan, Brian) |
| Filing 7 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The motion to reassign this case (Dckt. No. #6 ) is hereby denied without prejudice. Plaintiff filed it in the wrong case. Plaintiff believes that this case is related to an earlier-filed case (23-cv-15176) pending before Judge Jenkins. So, Plaintiff asks this Court to reassign this case under Local Rule 40.4. But Local Rule 40.4 says that a party must file such a motion before the judge with the first-filed case: "The motion shall be filed in the lowest-numbered case of the claimed related set and noticed before the judge assigned to that case." Basically, the judge with the first-filed case decides whether to take the second-filed case. The receiving judge, not the sending judge, decides whether to receive the new case. So the motion is denied because Plaintiff needs to ask Judge Jenkins. Mailed notice. (cp, ) |
| Filing 6 MOTION by Plaintiff Nedenia Udovich to reassign case [Unopposed Motion to Relate and Reassign Case Pursuant to Local Rule 40.4] (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Brian M. Hogan, #2 Ex. 1 - Brown Complaint)(Hogan, Brian) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Essilor International SAS, Essilor of America Holding Company, Inc., Essilor of America, Inc., EssilorLuxottica S.A., EssilorLuxottica USA Inc., EyeMed Vision Care, LLC, Luxottica Group S.p.A., Luxottica Of America, Inc., Luxottica U.S. Holdings Corp., Vision Source, LLC (jcc, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: There is no need for a certificate of service for a court filing when all parties of record receive a copy through CM/ECF. Under the Local Rules, "[a] certificate of service is required only when service of a document filed on the Court's E-Filing system is made on a recipient who is not an E-Filer listed on the docket of the proceeding." See L.R. 5.5(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(B) ("No certificate of service is required when a paper is served by filing it with the court's electronic-filing system."). The Court handles service through CM/ECF. In effect, the CM/ECF header is the certificate of service. Save yourself the work, and the trouble. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by January 29, 2024. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 1). (mek,) |
| 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. (mek,) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Nedenia Udovich by Brian M. Hogan (Hogan, Brian) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Hogan, Brian) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Nedenia Udovich; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-21318785.(Hogan, Brian) |
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.
