No idea where this case fits in among all the **** flying around Illinois’ anti-constitutional efforts, but somebody is in line for a butt-whoopin’. Emphasis added.
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Iain D. Johnston: The defendants removed this case, then moved for judgment on the pleadings based on lack of standing. Dkt. 9. They have now filed a notice of withdrawal of their motion for judgment on the pleadings based on their conclusion that the federal courts lack jurisdiction over this case, the case they removed to federal court. Dkt. 12. So what is it? Do the defendants believe this Court has jurisdiction (which is the only basis to remove it here) or do the defendants believe this Court lacks jurisdiction because the plaintiff lacks standing? Pick one and be prepared to tell the Court why. And if the answer is the Court lacks jurisdiction, be prepared to tell the Court why the case was removed to this Court. Please keep Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in mind during this process. Perhaps the judicial resources already expended could have been avoided had the defendants complied with this Court's standing order on Removed Cases, specifically the unheeded requirement that in "any action removed to this Court, within 7 business days, defense counsel must also file a certification that they have read this standing order." The parties are directed to review the standing order if they have not already done so, including the warnings about summary remands, awards of costs, and sanctions for the unnecessary use of the Court's time to be paid personally by counsel. A status hearing is set for 4/03/2023 at 11:00 AM. Counsel shall appear in person. (yxp, ) (Entered: 03/17/2023)
Kenneally v. Raoul, 3:23-cv-50039 - CourtListener.com
Docket for Kenneally v. Raoul, 3:23-cv-50039 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
www.courtlistener.com