Strebel et al v. Scoular
| Christopher Strebel and Tracy Henning |
| SCOULAR and Scoular doing business as The Scoular Company, Inc. |
| 1:2024cv00968 |
| February 2, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Gabriel A Fuentes |
| Environmental Matters |
| 33 U.S.C. § 1319 Pollutants & Permit Violations |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 22, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: The Court construes the joint status report (doc. #19 ) as an agreed motion to stay discovery until resolution of the pending motion to dismiss (doc. #10 ). The pendency of a motion to dismiss ordinarily is not a reason, in and of itself, to stay discovery. Here, because the parties are agreed, and because the Court expects to resolve the motion reasonably quickly, the stay is granted. No discovery schedule will be ordered until after resolution of the motion to dismiss, either by the Court's decision on the motion or by repleading. Mailed notice. (lxk, ) |
| Filing 19 STATUS Report (Joint) by Scoular (Hasan, Kamron) |
| Filing 18 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: The 3/14/24 status report is deferred until 3/21/24 at noon for a report solely on discovery status, completed discovery, and a proposed schedule for completion. Mailed notice. (lxk, ) |
| Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: The motion by attorney Barton to appear pro hac vice (doc. #16 ) is granted. Mailed notice. (lxk, ) |
| Filing 16 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number AILNDC-21717520. (Barton, Alexa) |
| Filing 15 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: The motion by attorney Hasan to appear pro hac vice (doc. #13 ) is granted. Mailed notice. (lxk, ) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: Defendant having filed a motion to dismiss (doc. #10 ), plaintiff as the non-moving party has a right to amend its pleading once within 21 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Consistent with the purpose of the Federal Rules "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding," Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the non-moving party is directed to carefully review the motion to dismiss and exercise its right to amend under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), if appropriate, on or before 3/27/24. If plaintiff elects to amend its pleading in response to the motion to dismiss, then defendant shall, within 21 days of the amended pleading, file either: (1) an answer; or (2) a revised motion to dismiss. If the non-moving party elects to decline this opportunity to amend, and instead chooses to litigate the motion to dismiss, then the non-moving party (unless ordered otherwise by this Court) shall file its response no later than 4/3/24, and defendant shall file its reply no later than 4/17/24. In its response, plaintiff must also confirm whether, in its view, any deficiencies identified by the motion to dismiss could be cured by amendment. This Court then would take the motion under advisement and rule in due course. The parties and their attorneys shall only appear to argue the motion if ordered by this Court. If the parties litigate the motion to dismiss and the moving party prevails, then the non-moving party is advised that this Court may dismiss the case with or without prejudice under the appropriate legal standards. Mailed notice. (lxk, ) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number AILNDC-21716299. (Hasan, Kamron) |
| Filing 12 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Scoular (Dlugosz, Jennifer) |
| Filing 11 MEMORANDUM by Scoular in support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim #10 (Dlugosz, Jennifer) |
| Filing 10 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendant Scoular , for a More Definite Statement, and Motion to Strike (Dlugosz, Jennifer) |
| Filing 9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Scoular by Jennifer L. Dlugosz (Dlugosz, Jennifer) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: This case is before us on consent, pursuant to the parties' prior agreement to consent in matter 22 C 6679, which we dismissed without prejudice by agreed order on 10/17/23 and with leave to refile within one year (doc. #72). The present matter represents that refiled case. The parties are ordered to submit a joint status report by noon on 3/14/24 describing the current posture of the case, including what discovery has been completed, what additional discovery each side anticipates, a proposed schedule for completion including any expert, and whether the parties wish to explore settlement. Mailed notice. (lxk, ) |
| Filing 7 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: IT APPEARING THAT, due to a clerical error case 24-cv-968, Strebel et al v. Scoular, was assigned randomly in error to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger, therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the assignment of 24-cv-968, Strebel et al v. Scoular, to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger be vacated as the assigned judge and the case shall be reassigned directly to the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case reassigned to the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes for all further proceedings. Honorable Steven C. Seeger no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Executive Committee on 2/26/2024. (ph, ) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Christopher Strebel, Tracy Henning as to Scoular on 2/13/2024, answer due 3/5/2024. (Sato, Shorge) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Scoular (mcp, ) |
| 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 April 22, 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, ) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS by Tracy Henning, Christopher Strebel (Sato, Shorge) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Sato, Shorge) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (ksr, ) |
| 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. (ksr, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Christopher Strebel, Tracy Henning; JURY DEMAND. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-21601285. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K)(Sato, Shorge) |
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.
