Foreman v. Church Hill Classics, Ltd.
| Eric Foreman |
| Church Hill Classics, Ltd. |
| 3:2022cv02478 |
| October 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois |
| Stephen P McGlynn |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 1 U.S.C. ยง 102 Americans with Disabilities Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. Approved by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 11/28/2022. (anb2) |
Filing 9
ORDER re #8 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because the opposing party in this case has neither filed an answer nor a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff's notice of dismissal is effective immediately upon filing and does not require judicial approval. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the case on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 11/28/2022. (anb2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Eric Foreman (Sweet, Benjamin) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine A Rodosky on behalf of Church Hill Classics, Ltd. (Rodosky, Katherine) |
| Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Eric Foreman. Church Hill Classics, Ltd. served on 11/1/2022, answer due 11/22/2022. (Sweet, Benjamin) |
|
Filing 5
JURISDICTIONAL ORDER: This matter is before the Court sua sponte on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction related to Article III standing. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) ("Standing to sue is a doctrine rooted in the traditional understanding of a case or controversy. The doctrine developed in our case law to ensure that federal courts do not exceed their authority as it has been traditionally understood. The doctrine limits the category of litigants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal court to seek redress for a legal wrong."); see also MainStreet Org. of Realtors v. Calumet City, Ill., 505 F.3d 742, 747 (7th Cir. 2007) ("... if there is no Article III standing, the court is obliged to dismiss the suit even if the standing issue has not been raised...."). The Supreme Court has routinely "rejected the proposition that 'a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.'" See TransUnion LLC, v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021) (quoting Spokeo, 112 S.Ct. at 1549). To have standing to seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must allege a substantial likelihood that he will be subjected to the real and immediate threat of future harm. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 105 (1983). It appears that Plaintiff Eric Foreman has not established a plausible claim of Article III standing in this action and, therefore, subject matter jurisdiction. For instance, there are no facts in the Complaint (Doc. #1 ) indicating any specific details about when and how often Foreman intends to go back to the noncompliant website he visited. Accordingly, before taking any further action, the Court ORDERS Foreman to submit a brief on or before 11/18/2022 explaining why the Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to respond to this show cause order by the deadline shall result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 10/28/2022. (anb2)THIS TEXT ENTRY IS AN ORDER OF THE COURT. NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION WILL BE MAILED.
|
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Church Hill Classics, Ltd. Original mailed to Attorney Sweet. (bmc) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Benjamin J. Sweet on behalf of Eric Foreman (Sweet, Benjamin) |
| Filing 2 Notice of Judge Assignment. Judge Stephen P. McGlynn assigned. All future documents must bear case number 22-2478-SPM. (bmc) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Church Hill Classics, Ltd. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number AILSDC-4914116.), filed by Eric Foreman. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons)(Sweet, Benjamin) |
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 Southern 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
| Search for this case: Foreman v. Church Hill Classics, Ltd. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Eric Foreman | |
| Represented By: | Benjamin J. Sweet |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Church Hill Classics, Ltd. | |
| Represented By: | Katherine A Rodosky |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
