Robinson et al v. Unilever US, Dove
| Willie Kimbrough and Keith Robinson |
| Unilever US, Dove |
| 1:2024cv05285 |
| June 25, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Edmond E Chang |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 6, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 DEFAULT Judgment filed by Willie Kimbrough, Keith Robinson. (Exhibit) (Received via pro se email on 8/6/2024) (jh, ) |
| Filing 11 MOTION by Plaintiffs Willie Kimbrough, Keith Robinson for default judgment (Received via pro se email on 08/05/2024) (Exhibit) (smb, ) Modified on 8/6/2024 (smb, ). |
| Filing 10 APPLICATION for Entry of Default and supporting Affidavit filed by Plaintiffs Willie Kimbrough, Keith Robinson. (Exhibits) (Received by mail in the Clerk's Office on 7/31/2024) (jh, ) |
| Filing 9 AFFIDAVIT OF PROCESS SERVER (Received via Box.com 7/18/24) (nsf, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) On review of the Plaintiffs' response to the jurisdictional inquiry, R. 6, two observations are required. First, the Court earlier pointed out that the Plaintiffs relied on the Class Action Fairness Act for jurisdiction, Compl. at 3 (PDF page citation). See R. 5(2). But the Plaintiffs cannot represent persons in a class action if they are not licensed lawyers. 28 U.S.C. 1654; Navin v. Park Ridge Sch. Sist. 64, 270 F.3d 1147, 1149 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that a "non-lawyer... has no authority to appear" as another person's le-gal representative). Neither of the Plaintiffs filed an attorney appearance form, and none of the filings appear to assert that they are licensed lawyers. So the class-action allegations are stricken. Second, ordinary diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), still might apply. The Plaintiffs allege that they are Illinois citizens and that the Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in New Jersey. R. 6 at 1. At least for now, until the Defendant appears in the case, it is appropriate to accept these allegations and await the Defendant's appearance. (2.) But the return of service, R. 7, does not show effectuation of service. Instead, the return says that the Defendant used "next-day Postal Service" to deliver the summons and complaint. R. 7 at 1. That is not proper service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h). The Plaintiffs must properly accomplish service under the Civil Rules. The tracking status hearing of 08/16/2024 is reset to 09/13/2024 at 8:30 a.m., but to track the case only (no appearance is required, the case will not be called). The Plaintiffs shall file a status report on the progress of service by 09/06/2024. Emailed notice (mw, ) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Keith Robinson as to Unilever US, Dove on 7/9/2024, answer due 7/30/2024. (Received via pro se email on 7/11/24.) (ph, ) |
| Filing 6 MEMORANDUM by Keith Robinson, Willie Kimbrough against Unilever US, Dove.(Received via Box.com 7/9/24, Exhibits) (nsf, ) (Text Modified by the Clerk's Office on 7/10/2024 to reflect the correct document type.) (tg, ). |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (1.) Although the complaint caption spells the last name of the lead Plaintiff as "Roinson," all other references in the complaint spell the name as "Robinson." The Clerk's Office shall edit the Case Short Title so that the lead Plaintiff's last name is spelled as "Robinson." (2.) The Court has reviewed the complaint, R. 1, and issues the following jurisdictional inquiry. The Plaintiffs rely on the Class Action Fairness Act, which requires minimal diversity, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), for subject matter jurisdiction. Compl. at 3 (PDF page citation). The Plaintiffs allege that they are citizens of Illinois. Id. The Plaintiffs then allege that Defendant Unilever US, Dove has its principal place of business in New Jersey. Id. But the complaint does not specify which State the Defendant is incorporated in, and whether the Defendant is indeed a corporation. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(c)(1) (a corporation's citizenship depends on the State of incorporation and its principal place of business). The Plaintiffs shall either amend the complaint by 07/16/2024 with the necessary allegations (if they can do so in good faith), or file a memorandum by that date explaining why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Emailed notice (cn). |
| Filing 4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Initial tracking status hearing set for 08/16/2024 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 08/08/2024. Plaintiffs must still file the report even if Defendant has not responded to requests to craft a joint report. If the Defendant has not 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, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (Received at the Intake Counter on 6/25/2024) (jh, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Keith Roinson, Willie Kimbrough. (Exhibits) (Received at the Intake Counter on 6/25/2024) (jh, ) |
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Unilever US, Dove. (jh, ) |
| 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. (jh, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (jh, ) |
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.
