Eiserman & Assocs., LLC v. Rosen, No. 13 C 1315, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Zambezia Film Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-33, No. 13 C 1323, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Zambezia Film Pty. Ltd. v. Does 1-60, No. 13 C 1741, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Shoppertrak RCT Corp. v. Objectvideo, No. 13 C 1323, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2013) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
In each of these cases, Judge Shadur entered similar orders requiring the plaintiff to provide the Court a courtesy copy of its newly filed complaint within one week of the date of the opinion. The Clerk of the Court recently ended its practice of delivering each chambers a courtesy hard copy of any new complaints that it drew. As such, the Court had stopped exempting counsel from its Local Rule 5.2(f) obligation to provide copies of complaints. Going forward, counsel were required to file courtesy copies of complaints. Courtesy copies of complaints are critical in order to allow the Court to control its docket by:
- Reviewing the contents of each complaint;
- Issuing sua sponte orders as necessary regarding the complaint;
- Setting an initial status; and
- Creating a “bible sheet” for the binder the Court maintains as to each case before it.
New Paradigm Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Q101 v. Merlin Media LLC, No. 12 C 5160, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur sua sponte issued this order to address deficiencies in plaintiff New Paradigm’s answer to defendant Merlin Media’s counterclaims, specifically:
- New Paradigm’s answers to Merlin Media’s affirmative defenses were struck as improper.
- Denials based upon a lack of information and belief were struck as improper.
- References to “strict proof” were ordered to be removed.
- Answers that “waffle[ed]” and did not provide a response were required to be repled.
Pyramid Packaging, Inc. v. Pyramid Packaging, LLC, No. 12 C 4420, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 20, 2012) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur sua sponte raised several issues with defendant’s motion to dismiss in this trademark case. Defendant’s counsel claimed that service was delayed and made upon the wrong entity. But plaintiff’s sworn service affidavit “flatly refuted” those claims. These and other issues would be discussed at the hearing on defendant’s motion.