Ghanayem v. Hitesh
| Shade George Ghanayem |
| Patel Hitesh, John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 |
| 1:2024cv07210 |
| August 14, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Mary M Rowland |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 2, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 24 RESPONSE by Plaintiff Shade George Ghanayem in opposition to defendant's motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead. (Received at the Intake Counter on 10/02/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 23 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The Court has reviewed Defendant's motion for extension of time #22 . The Court grants Defendant's motion as follows. Any response by defendant to the Plaintiff's complaint is stayed until the court determines the claims that will be at issue. [16, 20]. Mailed notice. (jg, ) |
| Filing 22 MOTION by Defendant Patel Hitesh for extension of time (Siegel, Brian) |
| Filing 21 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Patel Hitesh by David Richard Condron (Condron, David) |
| Filing 20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint by dismissing his federal claims and pleading ONLY state claw claims. This would deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court would dismiss the federal claims WITH PREJUDICE. That would mean the Mr. Ghanayem would not be permitted to ever again assert a violation of his federal civil rights arising out of the "seizure of his property". He would not be able to assert a violation of his due process rights, his fourth amendment rights, his civil rights under 42 U.S.C Sec 1983, or any other federal claims. He would have to proceed with any STATE LAW action only in state court. Telephonic status hearing set for Monday 10/7/24 at 9:30 AM to discuss this matter. Parties are directed to call 866-434-5269; access code 3751971. For the reasons stated previously [9, 11, 13], Plaintiff's motion to remand #18 is denied. Mailed notice. (jg, ) |
| Filing 19 PROPOSED ORDER for remand by Shade George Ghanayem. (Received at the Intake Counter on 09/27/2024.) (daj, ) |
| Filing 18 MOTION by Plaintiff Shade George Ghanayem to remand to State Court. (Received at the Intake Counter on 09/27/2024.) (daj, ) |
| Filing 17 RECEIVED PETITION for redress of State law claims and motion to remand to State Court based on lack of Federal jurisdiction by Shade George Ghanayem. (Received at the Intake Counter on 09/27/2024.) (daj, ) |
| Filing 16 MOTION by Plaintiff Shade George Ghanayem to amend petition. (Received at the Intake Counter on 09/27/2024.) (daj, ) |
| Filing 15 MOTION by Plaintiff Shade George Ghanayem to strike improper minute entry and demand formal Judicial Order for immediate remand. (Received at the Intake Counter on 09/05/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration #13 of the 8/29/24 order denying Plaintiff's request to remand the case to state court #12 is denied. Plaintiff has filed a case under a federal statute. The defendant properly removed it to federal court. Plaintiff asserts that there is a state court hearing set for today. That hearing will likely proceed. Plaintiff is free to dismiss this case if he does not wish to be in federal court. But he cannot bring a case under 42 USC Sec. 1983 in state court. Mailed notice. (dm, ) |
| Filing 13 URGENT MOTION by Plaintiff Shade George Ghanayem for reconsideration of denial of Emergency Motion for immediate remand. (Received by Intake Counter on 9/3/24). (gcy, ) |
| Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff's emergency motion for remand and motion for remand #11 #9 are denied. Plaintiff filed this action under a federal statute, 42 U.S.C Sec 1983 and alleges violation of his FEDERAL constitutional rights. Defendant properly removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). The court strikes the hearing set for 9/18/24. Defendant to answer or otherwise plead by 9/30/24. Mailed notice. (dm, ) |
| Filing 11 EMERGENCY MOTION by Plaintiff Shade George Ghanayem for immediate remand to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Exhibits) (Received at the Intake Counter on 8/27/2024) (emc, ) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiff's motion to remand is set for telephonic hearing on 9/18/24 at 2:00 PM. The City need not file any responsive pleading to the motion or the complaint prior to that date. Plaintiff and counsel are to call 866-434-5269; access code 3751971. Joint initial status report date of 9/27/24 #8 is stricken and reset to 11/14/24. Mailed notice. (dm, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: On or before 9/27/24, the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Rowland's name and then again on the link entitled 'Initial Status Conference.' The litigants are further ordered to review all of Judge Rowland's standing orders and the information available on her webpage. The court will enter a scheduling order in response. Mailed notice. (dm, ) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Plaintiff Shade George Ghanayem to remand to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Exhibits). (Received at the Intake Counter on 08/19/24) (aee, ) |
| Filing 7 MAILED Notice of Removal letter to counsel of record. (aee, ) |
| 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. (aee, ) |
Filing 5
ORDER: #Local Rule 3.3# requires that any document submitted for filing for which a filing fee is required must be accompanied either by the appropriate fee or an In Forma Pauperis Application and Financial Affidavit. No filing fee or IFP petition was submitted at the time of filing this matter. Patel Hitesh is directed to pay the required filing fee or submit a completed #In Forma Pauperis Application and Financial Affidavit# within 15 days of this notification. Pursuant to LR 3.3(f), failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action by the assigned judge. Signed by the Executive Committee. (man, )
|
| Filing 4 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Siegel, Brian) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Patel Hitesh by Brian S Siegel (Siegel, Brian) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook Count, case number (24L007260) filed by Patel Hitesh (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Siegel, Brian) |
| Filing 1 Notice of Removal by Patel Hitesh (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Siegel, Brian) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Mary M. Rowland. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. FEE DUE, NO INFORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION SUBMITTED. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (man, ) |
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.
