Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

12-9184 - Richardson v. City of Chicago et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
12-9184 - Richardson v. City of Chicago et al
July 10, 2013
PDF | More
WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 7/10/2013: Before the Court are Defendants' motions for the entry of a protective order in three cases that have been referred to Magistrate Judge Finnegan for coordinated discovery proceedings. This motion originally was filed beforeJudge Finnegan, but returned to this Court by agreement of the assigned judges as it involves an issue on which the Court previously has ruled and which would be subject to appeal (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72) regardless of Judge Finnegan's ruling. For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motions [docket number 81 in 12cv9158; docket number 52 in 12cv9170; docket number 51 in 12cv9184] are granted; Defendants are requested to resubmit to the Courts proposed order box a single protective order that will control in all three cases with the version of paragraph 2 that they have proposed. Mailed notice(tbk, )
November 13, 2013
PDF | More
ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the Court grants in part Defendants' motions to dismiss 44. Count I is dismissed as time-barred as to all Defendants. Count II is dismissed as to all Defendants, in so far as Plaintiff alleges a violation of a generalized due process right to a fair trial; however, Defendants' motion is denied as to Count II, with respect to Plaintiff's Brady claims. Defendants' motions are denied as to Counts III andIV. Count V is dismissed for failure to state a claim for supervisory liability. Defendants' motions are denied as to Counts VI through XI. The dismissals of Plaintiffs claims are without prejudice to repleading within 21 days if Plaintiffs believe that they can cure any of the deficiencies identified. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 11/13/2013. Mailed notice(tbk, )
July 9, 2014
PDF | More
07]; 12-cv-9184, 96. Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 7/9/2014. Mailed notice(tbk, ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: for the reasons stated below, the Court grants Plaintiffs' consolidated motion to reconsider 96 and reinstates Count II in its entirety in each of Plaintiffs' complaints. 12-cv-9158, 146; 12-cv-9170, [1
July 11, 2014
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 7/11/2014. Mailed notice(tbk, )
November 17, 2015
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 11/17/2015. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration 119 is granted and Count I of Plaintiff's complaint 1 is reinstated in its entirety. Defendant City of Chicago's motion to bifurcate and stay discovery and trial 137 is granted. Mailed notice(cdh, )
January 4, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 1/4/2017. Mailed notice(cdh, )
July 19, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 7/19/2017. Mailed notice(cdh, )
May 29, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. on 5/29/2018. Mailed notice(cdh, )