EXHIBIT
ft

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

" r'
:.;H' , " '1001

MICHAEL WILLARD, et aI.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

-v

)

)

DONALD SNYDER, Director of

)

Illinois Department of Corrections,

)

Et aI.,

)

)

Defendants. )

01 C 1884
Honorable Matthew Kennelly Judge Presiding
F I LED
SEP 1 3 2001

STIPULATED DISMISSAL

MICHAEL W. DOBBINS CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Now come the plaintiffs, Michael Willard, William Frierson, Gary Moore, and Douglas Nash, through their attorneys, Thomas Peters, Kevin Peters, and Elyse Yoelin, and defendants, by and through their attorney, James E. Ryan, Attorney General for the State of Illinois, and hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this cause. The parties agree as follows:
1. This lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice and without leave to reinstate, in view of the acknowledgment by the parties that: 8. the Department has directed its responsible administrators and staff that, absent exigent circumstances, preliminary hearings for parolees/releasees who have been arrested solely for technical parole/release violations in Cook County, Illinois, must be held at a location reasonably near the place of the alleged parole/release violation or arrest, which shall include any designated facility within sixty miles of Cook County or the nearest Department Reception and Classification Center. b. the Department has directed its responsible administrators to amend the notice of charges to provide notice to alleged violators that they may retain an attorney to represent them at

1

the preliminary hearing in accordance with 20 III. Adm. Code 1610.140 (c) and that they may make in advance of the hearing a written request to present witnesses who can provide relevant information, or for adverse witnesses, consistent with the hearing officer's determination of good cause. c. the Department has directed its responsible administrators and staff that where the parolee/releasee requests in advance of the hearing to present witnesses or to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses, the testimony of those witnesses may be provided, as the hearing officer directs, either in person or through a telephonic link up between the witness and the site of the preliminary hearing on the date scheduled for the hearing. However, with regard to witnesses, in person or telephonic testimony shall not be required where the proffered evidence upon which the requested testimony would be based bears substantial guarantees of trustworthiness or where the testimony of a witness is excluded for good cause. d. the Department has directed its responsible administrators and staff to hold preliminary hearings for parolees/releasees who have been arrested solely for technical parole/release violations in Cook County, Illinois, within ten business days of their imprisonment pursuant to the execution of a parole violation warrant alleging a technical parole/release violation, absent exigent circumstances. The Department has directed its responsible administrators and staff that a preliminary parole revocation hearing need not be held within ten business days if (1) the parolee/releasee waives the preliminary parole revocation hearing; (2) the parolee/releasee requests or agrees to a continuance of the preliminary parole revocation hearing; (3) the parolee/releasee is unavailable due to physical or mental health reasons or other reasons as determined by the
2

Department; or (4) the hearing officer continues the preliminary revocation hearing for up to fourteen business days from the date the hearing was originally scheduled in order to obtain evidence or to ensure the attendance of witnesses, or for other good cause Shown.
e. the Department has directed its responsible administrators and
staff that where the alleged parole violation is supported solely by an unverified written statement of a parole agent, the hearing officer must also review a sworn verification, affidavit, or declaration from the parole agent, an appropriately executed copy of the violation report or oral testimony of the parole agent. 2. This stipulated dismissal shall not constitute an admission of liability and shall not serve as a precedent or be admissible in any proceeding.

Thomas Peters

Counsel for

(0 Date:

1) b I

Edward Seward Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants
Date: _ _ <7---'/cO__ _ _ __
'

3

 
 Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHER DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL WILLARD, WILLIAM FRIERSON, ALLON CAMPBELL, and GARY MOORE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD SNYDER, Director of Illinois Department of Corrections, JAMES CERVONE,

)

) JUDGE KENNELLY

)

0 1) 1884 ~A"""j ') j

~··~

,__ )

)

)

No.

Go
t / ,·-·. ·, '

-'. .
: '1

)

l.... ;
- ., ~-·~ -~-~~ 1 ''l

. MAG)ISTRATE

JUDGE

ASHMAN.
.

)

.:-<J

,.-·· f' ,• ) _,·_. en

Assistant Deputy Chief, Adult

)

Parole/Field Operations, RICHARD )

JURY DEMANDED

LAPIDOS, Parole Agent,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
Now comes the Plaintiffs, MICHAEL WILLARD, WILLIAM FRIERSON, ALLEN CAMPBELL and GARY MOORE, through their attorneys, THOMAS PETERS, KEVIN PETERS, and ELYSE YOELIN, and states as follows:
COUNT I
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Willard is a citizen of the United States and an Illinois parolee who currently is in custody at the Big Muddy Correctional Center.
2. Plaintiff Frierson is a citizen of the United States and an Illinois parolee who currently is in custody at the Big Muddy

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2
Correctional Center. 3. Plaintiff Campbell is a citizen of the United States and
an Illinois parolee who currently is in custody at the Big Muddy Correctional Center.
4. Plaintiff Moore is a citizen of the United States and an Illinois parolee who is residing in Chicago, Illinois.
5. Defendant Snyder is the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. In that capacity, he sets the policies and practices relating to parolees and he is sued in his individual and his official capacities.
6. Defendant Cervone is the Assistant Deputy Chief of Adult Parole/Field Operations for the Illinois Department of Corrections. In that capacity, he implements the policies of Defendant Snyder and trains other IDOC employees in accordance with those policies and practices, and Cervone is sued in his individual and his official capacities.
7. Defendant Lapidos is a parole agent for the Illinois Department of Corrections. In that capacity, he worked at the Cook County Jail and was responsible for scheduling preliminary parole revocation hearings. Lapidos is sued in his individual capacity only.
8. All of the acts and omissions alleged in this complaint were made under color of state law.
9. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3
10. All of the Defendants maintain offices and do business in or near Chicago, Illinois, and the site for all of the preliminary parole revocation hearings is Chicago, Illinois.
11. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 1334 and 2201.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 12. Michael Willard (No. B73178) was paroled from the Big Muddy Correctional Center. 13. Following his release on parole, Plaintiff Willard was assigned a parole agent in Cook County, Illinois. 14. In early January, 2001, Plaintiff Willard was arrested in Chicago for an alleged technical (non-criminal) violation of parole. 15. Plaintiff Willard denies that he had committed a parole violation at any time prior to his arrest in January, 2001. 16. Within a few hours of his arrest, Plaintiff Willard was taken to the Cook County Jail. 17. Defendant Lapidos was assigned as a parole agent to the Cook County Jail when Plaintiff Willard was arrested. 18. Defendant Lapidos' duties at that time included serving notice of parole violation charges and scheduling preliminary parole revocation hearings. 19. Defendant Lapidos did not serve Plaintiff Willard with notice of charges of the alleged parole violation. 20. Defendant Lapidos did not schedule a preliminary parole revocation hearing for Plaintiff Willard.
3

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4
21. Defendant Lapidos did not secure a waiver of preliminary parole revocation hearing from Plaintiff Willard.
22. Instead, acting pursuant to the policies and practices of Defendants Snyder and Cervone, Defendant Lapidos arranged for (or allowed) Plaintiff Willard to be transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center.
23. Plaintiff Willard was transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center within a few days of his arrest.
24. Plaintiff Willard had not waived his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing, at or near the site of the alleged violation, when he was transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center.
25. It is, and was in January of 2001, the policy and practice of Defendants (Snyder and Cervone) to return alleged parole violators to the institution from which they were paroled.
26. As a direct result of that policy of Defendants Snyder and Cervone, Plaintiff Willard was transferred from the Joliet Correctional Center to the Big Muddy Correctional Center.
27. The Big Muddy Correctional Center is located in Ina, Illinois.
28. Ina is hundreds of miles from Chicago. 29. Plaintiff Willard did not waive his constitutional right to a prompt preliminary parole revocation hearing at any time prior to his transfer from the Joliet Correctional Center to the Big Muddy Correctional Center. 30. Plaintiff Willard has been in custody for more than sixty days and he still has not had a preliminary parole
4

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5
revocation hearing. 31. Plaintiff Willard has a well-established constitutional
right to a prompt preliminary parole revocation hearing. 32. Plaintiff Willard has a well-established constitutional
right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing near the site of the alleged parole violation.
33. Plaintiff Willard has a well-established right to counsel, to call witnesses, and to confront and cross examine witnesses at his preliminary parole revocation hearing.
34. Defendants' (Snyder, Cervone, and Lapidos) policies and practices as applied to Plaintiff Willard violated Plaintiff Willard's constitutional rights as identified in paragraph 30-33 above.
35. Defendants' policy, of shipping alleged parole violators out of the Cook County Jail to the Joliet correctional Center and then to the institution from which the parole was granted, creates a system which guarantees that no Cook County parolee will receive a prompt preliminary parole revocation hearing at or near the site of the alleged parole violation.
36. Defendants' policy, of shipping alleged parole violators out of the Cook County Jail to the Joliet correctional Center and then to the institution from which the parole was granted, creates a system which guarantees that Cook County parolees will not have counsel or favorable witnesses present when a preliminary parole revocation hearing finally is held.
37. Absent exigent circumstances, a preliminary parole revocation hearing should be held within ten (10) days of a
5

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6
parolee's arrest and the hearing should be held at or near the site of the alleged violation.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Willard prays the Court will a) issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT II 1-11. Plaintiff Frierson re-alleges paragraphs 1-11 of Count I as paragraphs 1-11 of Count II. 12. Plaintiff Frierson (No. B31775) was paroled from the Big Muddy Correctional Center. 13. On or about February 11, 2001, Plaintiff Frierson was arrested for a technical (non-criminal) parole violation. 14. At the time of his arrest, Plaintiff Frierson was with his fiancee, Gloria Williams. 15. Plaintiff Frierson denies that he violated any condition of his parole on the day of his arrest or on any other day. 16. Plaintiff Frierson was not served with notice of the parole violation charges, has not waived his right to a prompt preliminary parole revocation hearing, and has not had a parole revocation hearing.
6

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7
17-37. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 17-37 of Count I as paragraphs 17-37 of Count II.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Frierson prays the Court will a) issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT III 1-11. Plaintiff Campbell re-alleges paragraphs 1-11 of Count I as paragraphs 1-11 of Count III. 12. Plaintiff Campbell was paroled from Big Muddy Correctional Center. 13. Following his release on parole, Plaintiff Campbell was assigned to a parole agent in Chicago, Illinois. 14. On or about February 23, 2001, Plaintiff Campbell was arrested for a technical (non-criminal) parole violation. 15. Plaintiff Campbell did not violate any of the terms or conditions of his parole prior to his arrest in Chicago, Illinois. 16. Within a few hours of his arrest, Plaintiff Campbell was transferred to the Cook County Jail. 17. Defendant Lapidos was assigned as a parole agent to the Cook County Jail when Plaintiff Campbell was arrested.
7

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8
18. Defendant Lapidos' duties at that time included that he was to serve notice of parole violation charges and scheduled preliminary parole revocation hearings.
19. Defendant Lapidos did not serve Plaintiff Campbell with notice of charges of the alleged parole violators.
20. Defendant Lapidos did not schedule a preliminary parole revocation hearing for Plaintiff Campbell.
21. Defendant Lapidos did not secure a waiver of preliminary hearing from Plaintiff Campbell.
22. Instead, acting pursuant to the policies and practices of Defendants Snyder and Cervone, Defendant Lapidos arranged for (or allowed) Plaintiff Campbell to be transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center.
23-37. Plaintiff Campbell re-alleges paragraphs 23-37 of Count I as paragraphs 23-37 of Count III.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Campbell prays the Court will a) issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT IV
1-11. Plaintiff Moore re-alleges paragraphs 1-11 of Count I as paragraphs 1-11 of Count IV.
12. Plaintiff Moore was released on parole.
8

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9
13. On or about January 1, 2001, Plaintiff Moore was arrested for a technical (non-criminal) parole violation.
14. Plaintiff Moore denies that he violated any of the terms or conditions of his parole.
15. Plaintiff Moore was taken into custody, on the parole violation charge, at the Cook County Jail.
16. He remained at the Cook County Jail for a few days and then was transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center.
17. From the Joliet Correctional Center, he was transferred to the Big Muddy Correctional Center in Ina, Illinois.
18. Plaintiff Moore was not served with notice of the parole violation charges while in the Cook County Jail or while at the Joliet Correction Center.
19. Defendant Lapidos did not serve Plaintiff Moore with notice of charges of the alleged parole violators.
20. Defendant Lapidos did not schedule a preliminary parole revocation hearing for Plaintiff Moore.
21. Defendant Lapidos did not secure a waiver of preliminary hearing from Plaintiff Moore.
22-37. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 22-37 of Count I as paragraphs 22-37 of. Count IV.
38. Plaintiff Moore was in custody for approximately sixty (60) days before the Prisoner Review Board held a preliminary parole revocation hearing at Big Muddy Correctional Center and ordered him released.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Moore prays the Court will a) issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their
9

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10
policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award damages, costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT V CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1-37. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-37 of Count I as paragraphs 1-37 of Count V. 38. Defendants' policies and practices have been in effect for several months. 39. The number of Cook County parolees who have been adversely affected by Defendants' policies exceeds five hundred. 40. Plaintiffs (Willard, Frierson, and Campbell) represent a class of Cook County parolees who have been or will be arrested for technical parole violations in Cook County, Illinois from June 1, 2000 to the present. 41. The class, as so defined, is too numerous to make joinder of all class members practicable. 42. Defendants have established a unified policy that affects all Cook County parolees charged with technical violations in the same way. 43. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of all class members. 44. Common issues of law and fact predominate over any minor differences in treatment.
10

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11

u

j

'

"-._j

45. Plaintiffs' counsel can fairly and adequately represent the class.
46. The constitutional rights of all class members are being violated by Defendants' systematic policies and practices as described herein.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs (Willard, Frierson, and Campbell) prays the Court will a) issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award the Plaintiff class costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT VI
CLASS ACTION FOR DAMAGES
1-37. Plaintiff Moore re-alleges paragraphs 1-37 of Count I as paragraphs 1-37 of Count VI.
38. Plaintiff Moore represents a class of Cook Count parolees who were detained without the benefit of a prompt preliminary parole revocation and who have been, or will in the future be, found not to have violated the terms and conditions of their parole.
39-46. Plaintiff Moore re-alleges paragraphs 39-46 of Count Vas paragraphs 39-46 of Count VI.

11

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12

' ,

u

Wherefore, Plaintiff Moore prays the Court will award him
and the class he represents damages, 'cZ1o:tsand attornfeeeys.~'s---···

!

~

THoMAsPETERS

KEVIN PETERS

ELYSE YOELIN

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

542 S. Dearborn, Suite 750

Chicago, IL 60605

312-697-0022

12

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13

JS 44 (Rov. 12196)

(11 J '--'"'CIVIL COVER SHEET"-~

The JS-44 civil covers et
by law, except as provide oltllo Clerk ol Court for lhe

and the purpose

ionffoinroitfiactoionugnrttc.hoTenhtciasivinfiolerddmoh.cekaerpetpisnrohnveeeeidtthb(eSyrErtEehpeIlNaJcSuedTiRncioUarCl sCTuoIOpnpNfeleSrmeOneNcnetTotHhfeEthfeRiliEnUVgnEiatRenSddESstOeartFveiscTeHinEoSfFepOpletReaMmdi.nb) gesro1o9r7o4t,hiesrrpeaqpueirresdafsorrethqueiun

~' 1. (a) PLAINTIFFS

'JUDGE kENNE . . DEFENDANTS

;'.. .., .

c t88 Oo~ld al·~~ \~ ~' Miohaal WillardUi

Snydar, at.

{b) COlJNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PlAINTIFF

COOk

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT COO\JcJ ~f·;.

•f! (EM;_XA(:EGPTISINTUR.SA. TPELA_I.NTJUIFFDCGA_,SEESA) •SI."'lMAN. . . ·''

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONL'-(1:1

NOTE:

ITNRALACNTDOCF OLNADNEDMINNVAOTILOVNEDC.ASES,

USE THE
'

LO.f;ATION

OF

THE

(c)

··· · ····---·-······· --··-·····
!11101tNl:YS (FIIIM NAME. 110111\ESS. AND
'l'hornas Peters

-----
TELEPI-IONE

----
NIJMBCR)

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

------....
ATIOnNEYS (IF KNOWN)
James Ry

+ an

.

;

'

-

b

+

H

H

i

J

'

H

l

'

-

l

!

!

:

-

-

-

MAR ') g ?.Oftt Kevin Peters ·i'l.n¢1 ElYse Yoelin '"'"

Attorney General

w. 542 ~. Dearborn
o. ______c_h_i_c.!!:5LC?.t.....!: !~ -~,Q.a

S::5t:....#..7.>5~"03.'-"1:.!2:.L..-"-''-!-l-O'4r~J~-L--J..R:.an.nld.=oLglcp>.h.,,--L1J.2.t..h...Ft>lloJ.ot>r-IJ.J----------

u. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

trLAcE AN ·x·1N ONE sox ONLYI

Ill.

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL
(For Diversity Cases Only)

PARTIES IPI.AcE AN ·x'IN ONE eox FoR PiAIN1
AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT)

o 1 tJ S. Government
Plainttff

0( 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

Citizen of This Stale

PTF DEF
cyc• ~~

Incorporated or Principal Place

PTF Ill
o • o.

of Business In This State

[J 2 U.S. Government Defendant

o ' Olversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)

Citizen of Another State o 2 o 2 of a03 03

Incorporated and Principal Place o • 0 of Business In Another State

Foreign Nation

06 0

IV. ORIGIN

05

oe

07

rJ 110 lnsmanca 11 120 Manno 11130 Mllltll Acl [J 1-40 Nt)(JUU3ble lnstnnnont I I I SO llucuvUiy Clf Ovu1paymun1
lS t: nluu.:ul\lunl ul .lud\.)tllunt
II lSt Mulll.::a1u Act II 152 llucovmy uf Ool.mllocl
~lmlunlloal"l:.
rCxcl Vuhli<'Ul!.>l
U 153 AilcOVf:I!YOI Ovecpaymenl oiVelelan·s Bt~null\s
n 160 Stoct..hoh1olrs"Sui1s
["1190 (llliuiConlla\.1 I ) HIS Cuntlilt;\ P1\)ljuc1 Ualllll\y
REAl. PROPERTY
11210 l<llli!Corulonui.llh•n
r I 220 r tlrcCIOSUIU
I I 230 Hl:illlV<iW & [jl!CIIllt:'lll [J 240 TollS to land f I 24S Tort PHxluclllalllllty l l 2PO All Other Roal Property

PERSONAL INJURY
(] 310 Atrplilne 0 315 Airplane Product
liability
{] 320 Assault, lltlfll & Stand or
( 1330 Fodural Employers· Uablllly
fl 340 Martnt~ 0 345 Matlne Product
llabltny
0 350 Motor Vehicle
0 355 Moto1 Vehicle Productllablllly
0 360 Other Personattn]tny

PERSONAL INJURY
0 362 Personatlnlurv ..
Mad Malpracnco
0 3115 Pe~sonaltn!urv •
PrQductllaiJIIlty 0 368 AsiJostos POrSOn3t '
tn!ury Produt.11.1ablllty
PERSONAL PROPERTY · 0 370 Other Fcaud
0 371 Troth In Lending 0 380 Other-Personar
Proper1y Damage 0 385 Property Dnmago
f'IOtJm:l ~.lablllly

CiVIl. RIGHTS

tl441 Vollnu [l 442 Employment
( 1443 I lousing/
Accommodallons
0 444 Welfare 1~40 0\hel Civil Alghts

0 535 Oealh PenilitY ·~·; · ~
0 5-40 Mandamus & Olhet
05SOCMI I I
0 sss

0 110 Agriculture

0 422 Appea128 USC 156

0 620 Other FOOd & Drug

f:j~Qj~iij'f!iji~!Ii~ usc 0 125 Drug Related Seizure 0 423 Withdrawal

of Property 21 usc 861

28

157

00084300RliHqu&oTr rLuawcsk

~

0 650 AI1Hne tltJ!}S
0 660 Occupallonal Sa!ctylltoallh
0 690 Othec

0 120 CopyrighTs
0 830 Paton\
0 840 Trademark

0 710 Fair\ at.o1 S1anda1ds AOI
0 720 Labor/Mgmt Relations

0 861 HIA (1395rfl
0 862 Black Lung(923J
0 183 DIWC!OIWW (405{g))
0 864 SS!D Tille XVI
n 885 ft!it 1 <~ns{9n

no 0

Other LaborLIIIgallon

0 7i1 Empt !.let Inc Suc11111y Acl

0 870 Taxes (U S Ptatntlrf
or Oofendant)
0 871 lAS ··Third Party
26 USC 760U

0 400 State Reapportlonmenl 0 410 Antitrust
0 430 Bankt and Banking 0 450 Commerce/ICC Rates/etc. 0 460 Doportallon 0 470 Racketeor tnlluenced and
Corrupl O!gaultallons
0 110 Selocllve Sarvlco 0 150 Securllle$/Commodltle$/
Exchange
0 175 C12usutosmce134C1h0allenge
0 8i1 Agricultural Acts 0 192 Economic S\abllltaUon Ac 0 li3 Envlionm&n\al Manor:;. 0 8i4 Energy A11ocatton Act
n US Freedom of
hrlolmllllon Ar:l
0 toO Ap[HIIIUI fuy l.>utormlnlll Under £qual Accu~!>lo Ju
0 iSO Constitutionality or State Statutes
0 ItO Other Slalutory Acllons

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

(CITE TilE US. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WIIICii YOU_ ARE FiliNG AND Wf\ITE 011\EF STAlEMENT OF.CAIISE.

DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNt.ESS'tii9ERSITYI :,:;.::;ci~-:.~;.

''·'"~' -::..;:,·

42 u.s.c. 1983

Parolee Due Process (t ;,-')~ ;-.,_

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT

DEMAND$

0

CHECK IJNDER

IF THIS F.R.C.P.

IS 23

A

CLAS.S..A.C. T·•IO...N..

----

Violations

CHECK YES only Hdemanded In campi~

JURY DEMAND: )f*es

o NO

VIII. This case

(2a

is

not

a

' .,
rcfiting

of

.
a

' .. - __.. -:.
previously

d•' is__m:;;t,sdskeJd.d.<a..cLtQm-.•r~i:

"

0 --------------------------i-s-a''rc.l.i:li·n:g:.o.f·c:a;s~e•cn;u·m":b:e=r·"-'::!··c_•:_:"C, ;p.rce-v"io-u--sl"y'-d-icsmf~i,s:s.ed.:b"y~.J:;u::d:__g;_e_;-_-_;-__-;-__-~-:_:~~'-'c..:.-'-'-'------

llNITI!I) S"I"ATI•:S IIISTI{J(•I" ('()(IUT

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/16/01 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14

·.'
UN/TEO

STATES.. "D".. ISTRICT,C;.~-~~OtJIJk"URT

c:
(.")

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS In the Matter of Willard, et. al. v. Snyder, et. al.

::.. (_'/ r •
--·~
- ·- . -·' ..-·~ . '
-:';~ :~<;. :·~
-~.:.

v

c JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KASEHNMNAENL~Uurr. :

-·I
1884

APPEARANCES ARE HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY($) FOR:

Michael willard,. Allon Campbell, Gary Moore, and William Frierson

,-

w A

SIGNATURE !lA~ ~. H-"' n j//A~

NAME

v

THOMAS PETERS

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS
542 s . DEARBORN ST., #750
C/IYJSTATFJZIP
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605

TElEPHONE NUMBER
(312) 697-0022

a . ""'"'

UMBtH (StE ITEM 4
02183587

MI'MOCROF TRIAL BAA?

YES

0 NO

TRIAl ATIORNEYI

YES :{3:

NOO

(C)

Sl~~0r- /./~

NAME

/,

Elyse A. Yoelin

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS
542 s. Dearborn St., #750

CCIYJSTAT£/ZIP

rhir.aao IL 60605
TElEPHONE NUMBER

312-697-0022
lutNTIFJCATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)
6273283

MEMBER Of TRIAL BAA?

0 YES

NOjg:

TRlAl ATIORNEYI

YES D

NOR}:

OI:SJGNATEOAS LOCAL COUNSEL?

0 YES

NO fa

v;·\
SIGNATURE

lB)
""

NAME KEV CN PETERS
FIRM

II I
F:.6 Y 1 L\

ST'REETADDRESS
542 s. DEARBORN ST. , #750

C/IYJSTAT£/ZIP
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605

TElEPHONE NUMBER

(312) 697-0022

'""'"VN IOENTI

NUM.BER. (SEE !!EM 4 011 I

06184460

MEMBER Of TRIAl BAR?

YES£1

NOO

TRALATIORNEYI

YES:QJ

NOO

DESIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES D

NOD

(0)
SIGNATURE
NAME

FIRM

STREET AOORESS CCIY/STAT£/ZIP

TElEPHONE NUMBER

IOENTIFICATION NUMBER (SEE ITEM 4 ON REVERSE)

MEMBER OF TRIAL BAR? rnALATIOANEYI

YES D YES D

DeSIGNATED AS LOCAL COUNSEL?

YES D

NOD NOD NOO

PLEASE COMPLETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE.

 
 Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHER DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL WILLARD, WILLIAM

)

FRIERSON, DOUGLAS NASH,

)

and GARY MOORE,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

DONALD SNYDER, Director of

)

Illinois Department of

)

Corrections, JAMES CERVONE,

)

Assistant Deputy Chief, Adult

)

Parole/Field Operations, RICHARD )

LAPIDOS, Parole Agent,

)

)

Defendants.

)

No. 01 c 1884
JURY DEMANDED

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
Now comes the Plaintiffs, MICHAEL WILLARD, WILLIAM FRIERSON, DOUGLAS NASH and GARY MOORE, through their attorneys, THOMAS PETERS, KEVIN PETERS, and ELYSE YOELIN, and states as follows:
COUNT I
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff Willard is a citizen of the United States and an Illinois parolee who currently is in custody at the Big Muddy Correctional Center.

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:18
2. Plaintiff Frierson is a citizen of the United States and an Illinois parolee who currently is in custody at the Big Muddy Correctional Center.
3. Plaintiff Nash is a citizen of the United States and an Illinois parolee who resides in Chicago, Illinois.
4. Plaintiff Moore is a citizen of the United States and an Illinois parolee who is residing in Chicago, Illinois.
5. Defendant Snyder is the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections. In that capacity, he sets the policies and practices relating to parolees and he is sued in his individual and his official capacities.
6. Defendant Cervone is the Assistant Deputy Chief of Adult Parole/Field Operations for the Illinois Department of Corrections. In that capacity, he implements the policies of Defendant Snyder and trains other IDOC employees in accordance with those policies and practices, and Cervone is sued in his individual and his official capacities.
7. Defendant Lapidos is a parole agent for the Illinois Department of Corrections. In that capacity, he worked at the Cook County Jail and was responsible for scheduling preliminary parole revocation hearings. Lapidos is sued in his individual capacity only.
8. All of the acts and omissions alleged in this complaint were made under color of state law.
9. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violations of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:19

10. All of the Defendants maintain offices and do business in or near Chicago, Illinois, and the site for all of the preliminary parole revocation hearings is Chicago, Illinois.
11. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1331, 1334 and 2201.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. Michael Willard (No. B73178) was paroled from the Big
Muddy Correctional Center. 13. Following his release on parole, Plaintiff Willard was
assigned a parole agent in Cook County, Illinois. 14. In early January, 2001, Plaintiff Willard was arrested
in Chicago for an alleged technical (non-criminal) violation of

parole. 15. Plaintiff Willard denies that he had committed a parole
violation at any time prior to his arrest in January, 2001. 16. Within a few hours of his arrest, Plaintiff Willard was
taken to the Cook County Jail. 17. Defendant Lapidos was assigned as a parole agent to the
Cook County Jail when Plaintiff Willard was arrested. 18. Defendant Lapidos' duties at that time included serving
notice of parole violation charges and scheduling preliminary
parole revocation hearings. 19. Defendant Lapidos did not serve Plaintiff Willard with
notice of charges of the alleged parole violation. 20. Defendant Lapidos did not schedule a preliminary parole
revocation hearing for Plaintiff Willard.

3

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:20
21. Defendant Lapidos did not secure a waiver of preliminary parole revocation hearing from Plaintiff Willard.
22. Instead, acting pursuant to the policies and practices of Defendants Snyder and Cervone, Defendant Lapidos arranged for (or allowed) Plaintiff Willard to be transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center.
23. Plaintiff Willard was transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center within a few days of his arrest.
24. Plaintiff Willard had not waived his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing, at or near the site of the alleged violation, when he was transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center.
25. It is, and was in January of 2001, the policy and practice of Defendants (Snyder and Cervone) to return alleged parole violators to the institution from which they were paroled.
26. As a direct result of that policy of Defendants Snyder and Cervone, Plaintiff Willard was transferred from the Joliet Correctional Center to the Big Muddy Correctional Center.
27. The Big Muddy Correctional Center is located in Ina,
Illinois. 28. Ina is hundreds of miles from Chicago. 29. Plaintiff Willard did not waive his constitutional
right to a prompt preliminary parole revocation hearing at any time prior to his transfer from the Joliet Correctional Center to the Big Muddy Correctional Center.
30. Plaintiff Willard has been in custody for more than sixty days and he still has not had a preliminary parole
4

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:21
revocation hearing. 31. Plaintiff Willard has a well-established constitutional
right to a prompt preliminary parole revocation hearing. 32. Plaintiff Willard has a well-established constitutional
right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing near the site of the alleged parole violation.
33. Plaintiff Willard has a well-established right to counsel, to call witnesses, and to confront and cross examine witnesses at his preliminary parole revocation hearing.
34. Defendants' (Snyder, Cervone, and Lapidos) policies and practices as applied to Plaintiff Willard violated Plaintiff Willard's constitutional rights as identified in paragraph 30-33 above.
35. Defendants' policy, of shipping alleged parole violators out of the Cook County Jail to the Joliet correctional Center and then to the institution from which the parole was granted, creates a system which guarantees that no Cook County parolee will receive a prompt preliminary parole revocation hearing at or near the site of the alleged parole violation.
36. Defendants' policy, of shipping alleged parole violators out of the Cook County Jail to the Joliet correctional Center and then to the institution from which the parole was granted, creates a system which guarantees that Cook County parolees will not have counsel or favorable witnesses present when a preliminary parole revocation hearing finally is held.
37. Absent exigent circumstances, a preliminary parole revocation hearing should be held within ten (10) days of a
5

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:22

parolee's arrest and the hearing should be held at or near the
site of the alleged violation. Wherefore, Plaintiff Willard prays the Court will a) issue a
preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award costs and attorney's

fees.

COUNT II

1-11. Plaintiff Frierson re-alleges paragraphs 1-11 of Count I as paragraphs 1-11 of Count II.
12. Plaintiff Frierson (No. B31775) was paroled from the
Big Muddy Correctional Center. 13. On or about February 11, 2001, Plaintiff Frierson was
arrested for a technical (non-criminal) parole violation. 14. At the time of his arrest, Plaintiff Frierson was with
his fiancee, Gloria Williams. 15. Plaintiff Frierson denies that he violated any
condition of his parole on the day of his arrest or on any other

day. 16. Plaintiff Frierson was not served with notice of the
parole violation charges, has not waived his right to a prompt preliminary parole revocation hearing, and has not had a parole
revocation hearing. 17-37. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 17-37 of Count I as

6

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:23

paragraphs 17-37 of Count II.

Wherefore, Plaintiff Frierson prays the Court will a) issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award costs and attorney's

fees.

COUNT III

1-11. Plaintiff Nash re-alleges paragraphs 1-11 of Count I as paragraphs 1-11 of Count III.
12. Plaintiff Nash was paroled from Big Muddy Correctional

Center. 13. Following his release on parole, Plaintiff Nash was
assigned to a parole agent in Chicago, Illinois. 14. On or about February 23, 2001, Plaintiff Nash was
arrested for a technical (non-criminal) parole violation. 15. Plaintiff Nash did not violate any of the terms or
conditions of his parole prior to his arrest in Chicago,

Illinois. 16. Within a few hours of his arrest, Plaintiff Nash was
transferred to the Cook County Jail. 17. Defendant Lapidos was assigned as a parole agent to the
Cook County Jail when Plaintiff Nash was arrested. 18. Defendant Lapidos' duties at that time included that he

7

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:24
was to serve notice of parole violation charges and scheduled preliminary parole revocation hearings.
19. Defendant Lapidos did not serve Plaintiff Nash with notice of charges of the alleged parole violators.
20. Defendant Lapides did not schedule a preliminary parole revocation hearing for Plaintiff Nash.
21. Defendant Lapidos did not secure a waiver of preliminary hearing from Plaintiff Nash.
22. Instead, acting pursuant to the policies and practices of Defendants Snyder and Cervone, Defendant Lapidos arranged for (or allowed) Plaintiff Nash to be transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center.
23-37. Plaintiff Nash re-alleges paragraphs 23-37 of Count I as paragraphs 23-37 of Count III.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Nash prays the Court will a) issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT IV
1-11. Plaintiff Moore re-alleges paragraphs 1-11 of Count I as paragraphs 1-11 of Count IV.
12. Plaintiff Moore was released on parole. 13. On or about January 1, 2001, Plaintiff Moore was
8

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:25
arrested for a technical (non-criminal) parole violation.
14. Plaintiff Moore denies that he violated any of the terms or conditions of his parole.
15. Plaintiff Moore was taken into custody, on the parole violation charge, at the Cook County Jail.
16. He remained at the Cook County Jail for ·a few days and then was transferred to the Joliet Correctional Center.
17. From the Joliet Correctional Center, he was transferred to the Big Muddy Correctional Center in Ina, Illinois.
18. Plaintiff Moore was not served with notice of the parole violation charges while in the Cook County Jail or while at the Joliet Correction Center.
19. Defendant Lapides did not serve Plaintiff Moore with notice of charges of the alleged parole violators.
20. Defendant Lapidos did not schedule a preliminary parole revocation hearing for Plaintiff Moore.
21. Defendant Lapidos did not secure a waiver of preliminary hearing from Plaintiff Moore.
22-37. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 22-37 of Count I as paragraphs 22-37 of Count IV.
38. Plaintiff Moore was in custody for approximately sixty (60) days before the Prisoner Review Board held a preliminary parole revocation hearing at Big Muddy Correctional Center and ordered him released.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Moore prays the Court will a) issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their
9

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:26
policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award damages, costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT V CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1-37. Plaintiffs re-allege paragraphs 1-37 of Count I as paragraphs 1-37 of Count V. 38. Defendants' policies and practices have been in effect for several months. 39. The number of Cook County parolees who have been adversely affected by Defendants' policies exceeds five hundred. 40. Plaintiffs (Willard and Frierson) represent a class of Cook County parolees who have been or will be arrested for technical parole violations in Cook County, Illinois from June 1, 2000 to the present. 41. The class, as so defined, is too numerous to make joinder of all class members practicable. 42. Defendants have established a unified policy that affects all Cook County parolees charged with technical violations in the same way. 43. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of all class members. 44. Common issues of law and fact predominate over any minor differences in treatment.
10

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:27
. .
45. Plaintiffs' counsel can fairly and adequately represent the class.
46. The constitutional rights of all class members are being violated by Defendants' systematic policies and practices as described herein.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs (Willard and Frierson) prays the Court will a) issue a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from continuing their policy of transferring parolees from the Cook County Jail before the parolee has had, or waived, a preliminary parole revocation hearing; b) permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing their policy as alleged herein; (c) award the Plaintiff class costs and attorney's fees.
COUNT VI CLASS ACTION FOR DAMAGES 1-37. Plaintiff Moores and Nash re-allege paragraphs 1-37 of Count I as paragraphs 1-37 of Count VI. 38. Plaintiffs Moore and Nash represent a class of Cook Count parolees who were detained without the benefit of a prompt preliminary parole revocation and who have been, or will in the future be, found not to have violated the terms and conditions of their parole. 39-46. Plaintiffs Moore and Nash re-allege paragraphs 39-46 of Count Vas paragraphs 39-46 of Count VI.
11

Case: 1:01-cv-01884 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/15/01 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:28
..
Wherefore, Plaintiff Moore prays the Court will award him and the class he represents
PLAINTIFFS 542 S. Dearborn, Suite 750 Chicago, IL 60605 312-697-0022
12

 
 Case: 1:01-cv-1884 As of: 03/27/2017 06:55 AM CDT 1 of 3
ASHMAN,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.1.1 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:01−cv−01884

Willard, et al v. Snyder, et al Assigned to: Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/16/2001 Date Terminated: 09/17/2001 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Michael Willard

represented by Thomas M. Peters Law Offices of Thomas Peters 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1615 Chicago, IL 60604 (312)697−0022 Email: tompeters9@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elyse Yoelin Law office of William P. Murphy 542 South Dearborn Suite 750 Chicago, IL 60605 (312) 697−0022

Kevin R. Peters Law Offices of Kevin Peters 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1615 Chicago, IL 60604 (312)697−0022 Email: kp6970022@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff William Frierson

represented by Thomas M. Peters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elyse Yoelin (See above for address)

Kevin R. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Allon Campbell

represented by Thomas M. Peters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elyse Yoelin (See above for address)

Kevin R. Peters (See above for address)

Case: 1:01-cv-1884 As of: 03/27/2017 06:55 AM CDT 2 of 3

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Gary Moore

represented by Thomas M. Peters (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elyse Yoelin (See above for address)
Kevin R. Peters (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Donald Snyder Director of Illinois Department of Corrections
Defendant James Cervone Assistant Deputy Chief, Adult Parole/Field Operations
Defendant Richard Lapidos Parole Agent

represented by Edward Charles Seward , III Seward & Szczygiel, P.C. 4756 N Milwaukee Ave Chicago, IL 60630−3629
(773) 685−1272 Email: erseward@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Charles Seward , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward Charles Seward , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/16/2001 03/16/2001 04/12/2001 04/27/2001
04/30/2001

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT; jury demand − Civil cover sheet − Appearance(s) of Elyse Yoelin, Kevin R. Peters, Thomas M. Peters as attorney(s) for plaintiffs ( Three originals and three copi summons(es) issued.) (Doc 1−1 through 1−3) (eav) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 3/16/01 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 10673005. (eav) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
2 WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant Richard Lapidos sent on 4/3/01 (eav) (Entered: 04/13/2001)
SCHEDULE set on 4/27/01 by Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly : Initial Status hearing set to 9:00a.m. on 5/21/01 ,before Judge Kennelly in Chambers, Room 1778. Parties are to review and comply with the attached standing order. Counsel for plaintiff(s) are ordered to cause a copy of this order to be delivered forthwith to each defendant in the same manner that has been or is being served on each defendant. Mailed notice (or) (Entered: 04/27/2001)
3 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Donald Snyder, James Cervone, Richard Lapidos by Edward Charles Seward III; Notice of filing (eav) (Entered: 05/01/2001)

Case: 1:01-cv-1884 As of: 03/27/2017 06:55 AM CDT 3 of 3

05/11/2001 05/16/2001
06/05/2001
07/19/2001 08/07/2001 08/08/2001 08/15/2001 08/15/2001 09/13/2001 09/17/2001 07/24/2003

4 MOTION by defendants Donald Snyder, James Cervone, Richard Lapidos for enlargement of time to file response pleadings ; Notice of motion (eav) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
5 MINUTE ORDER of 5/16/01 by Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly : Defendant's motion for enlargement of time is granted. [4−1] Time for responsive pleading is extended to 7/9/01. Initial status hearing of 5/21/01 is reset to 6/5/01 at 9:00 a.m. in chambers. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
SCHEDULE set on 6/5/01 by Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly : Rule 16 (b) conference held with attorneys for all parties. Parties are engaged in settlement negotiations. Rule 16(b) conference reset to 6/28/01 at 9:00 a.m. Filing of all responsive pleadings is deferred. (or) (Entered: 06/13/2001)
SCHEDULE set on 7/19/01 by Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly : Status hearing set to 9:30 8/8/01 . Mailed notice (or) (Entered: 07/19/2001)
SCHEDULE set on 8/7/01 by Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly : Status hearing reset to 9:30 8/15/01 , for presentation of closing order. No further extensions. Telephoned notice (or) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
6 AGREED MOTION by plaintiff to file amended complaint ; Agreed notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
7 MINUTE ORDER of 8/15/01 by Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly : Plaintiff's motion to file amended complaint is granted [6−1]. Status hearing held and continued to 9:30 a.m. on 9/12/01. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
8 AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT for injunctive relief and damages [1−1] by plaintiff; jury demand (rmm) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
9 STIPULATED DIMISSAL; Notice of filing (eav) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
10 MINUTE ORDER of 9/17/01 by Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly : This case is dismissed based on the terms and conditions of the stipulated dismissal filed on 9/13/01. terminating case Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 09/18/2001)
ENTERED JUDGMENT. (air) (Entered: 07/28/2003)