IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

PERSONAL PAC, an Illinois not for profit ) 

corporation, MARCENA W. LOVE, ) 

GRACE ALLEN NEWTON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Judge Marvin E. Aspen 

) Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan 

 v. ) 

 ) No. 12 CV 1043 

 ) 

WILLIAM M. MCGUFFAGE, Chairman of ) 

the Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

JESSE R. SMART, Vice Chairman of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

HAROLD D. BYERS, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

BETTY J. COFFRIN, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

ERNEST L. GOWEN, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

JUDITH C. RICE, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; ) 

BRYAN A. SCHNEIDER, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections; and ) 

CHARLES W. SCHOLZ, Member of the ) 

Illinois State Board of Elections, all in ) 

their official capacities, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF STIPULATED ORDER AND 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 Plaintiffs Personal PAC, Marcena W. Love, and Grace Allen Newton 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys, move this Court pursuant to Rule 

54(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to approve the parties’ proposed 

settlement of attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs in the above-captioned case. In 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:227
2 

addition, the parties’ proposed settlement includes taxable costs sought by the 

Plaintiffs on April 3, 2012. See Dkt. # 41. Plaintiffs have attached a proposed 

Consent Order, reflecting the terms of the parties’ settlement. See Ex. A 

(“Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment”). 

In further support of this Motion, the parties state as follows: 

1. On February 14, 2012, Plaintiffs commenced this case by filing a 

complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants McGuffage, 

Smart, Byers, Coffrin, Gowen, Rice, Schneider, and Scholz (“Action”). At the same 

time, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, or, in the 

alternative, for expedited permanent injunctive relief, requesting that the Court 

enjoin Defendants from enforcing both: (a) 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d), as applied to funds 

raised, maintained, and spent for the purpose of independent expenditures; and (b) 

the prohibition, contained in 10 ILCS 5/9-2(d), against the establishment or 

maintenance of more than one political action committee (“PAC”), by any natural 

person, trust, partnership, committee, association, corporation, or other 

organization or group of persons, to the extent it prohibits the formation of an 

additional PAC created solely with funds raised, maintained, and spent solely for 

the purpose of independent expenditures. 

2. On March 13, 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and 

Order, granting Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited permanent injunctive relief. Dkt. 

#39. Specifically, the Court ordered that “Defendants not enforce the contribution 

limits set forth in the first sentence of 10 ILCS 5/9-8.5(d), as applied to 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:228
3 

contributions to any independent-expenditure-only PACS.” The Court further 

ordered that “Defendants not enforce the prohibition against the establishment or 

maintenance of more than one PAC contained in the first sentence of 10 ILCS 5/9-

2(d), as applied to the establishment or maintenance of independent-expenditureonly PACs.” Memorandum Opinion & Order at 13, Dkt. #39. 

3. The Court entered judgment on March 13, 2012. Dkt. 40. Defendants 

did not appeal that judgment. 

4. Plaintiffs are “prevailing parties” entitled to attorneys’ fees and 

nontaxable costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to 

taxable costs and, as a result, filed a bill of costs in the amount of $350 on April 3, 

2012; Dkt. 41. 

5. The parties have reached a settlement of the Plaintiffs’ claim for 

attorneys’ fees and costs in this case and have memorialized their agreement in the 

attached Stipulated Order and Consent Judgment. Ex. A. 

6. Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter the Stipulated Order and Consent 

Judgment and retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enforcing the terms of the 

Order. See Kokkenen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994). 

7. On June 18, 2012, Defendants’ counsel informed Plaintiffs’ counsel 

that Defendants do not oppose this motion. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the Plaintiffs ask this Court to 

enter the Order attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:229
4 

Dated: June 19, 2012 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Juliet Berger-White 

Matthew J. Piers 

Joshua Karsh 

Juliet Berger-White 

HUGHES SOCOL PIERS

 RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 

70 W. Madison, Suite 4000 

Chicago, IL 60602 

312.580.0100 

Case: 1:12-cv-01043 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/19/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:230