Oakley v. Belser et al
| Charles Oakley |
| Steve Belser, Rock Capital Entertainment, LLC, PEE BEE EYE, LLC and DOES 1 Through 10, Inclusive |
| 1:2023cv16355 |
| November 29, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) On review of the status report, R. 4, the Plaintiff is still making service efforts. The Civil Rule 4(m) deadline expires on 02/27/2024, so the Plaintiff must make prompt and diligent efforts to accomplish service. The tracking status hearing of 01/26/2024 is reset to 03/08/2024 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 (use Judge Chang's template, R. 2-1, not what was filed this time) by 03/01/2024, or the Plaintiff shall file it if no Defendant has appeared yet. (2.) On review of the complaint and the status report, the Court poses the following jurisdictional inquiry. According to civil cover sheet, R. 1-1, and the status report, R. 4, the Plaintiff relies on diversity jurisdiction. But the complaint only asserts that the Plaintiff is an Ohio "resident"; Defendant Belser is an Illinois "resident," and the two Defendant LLCs' sole member is Defendant Belser (by only his residency was alleged). The Plaintiff has failed to properly allege subject matter jurisdiction because the citizenship of parties--as distinct from residency--is what matters. Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (diversity citizenship depends on State of domicile, not residency); Hunter v. Amin, 583 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2009). The Plaintiff shall file a Jurisdictional Statement by 01/29/2024 setting forth the citizenship (meaning domicile) of the Plaintiff and Defendant Belser. Emailed notice (mw, ) |
| Filing 4 STATUS Report by Charles Oakley (Shalabi, Raed) |
| Filing 3 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 2 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Initial tracking status hearing set for 01/26/2024 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 01/18/2024. 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, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (axa, ) |
| 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. (axa, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Charles Oakley; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-21374266. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Shalabi, Raed) |
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.
