IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

KIRSHA BROWN-YOUNGER )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 1979

)

LULU, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court regularly obtains printouts of the Clerk’s Office

record of motions that are considered as pending in cases

assigned to its calendar--among other purposes, such listings

provide information (1) as to any motions that may inadvertently

have fallen between the cracks and (2) as to any motions on which

this Court has actually ruled but the Clerk’s Office has not made

the proper entries to remove those motions from the “pending”

list.

Issuance of this Court’s most recent opinions in this case

on July 3 and July 5 makes this a particularly good time to check

the posture of some still-open items here. This memorandum order

accordingly confirms the following:

1. Dkt. 68 is Brown-Younger’s June 18, 2012 motion

that sought (a) to stay the then-scheduled July 27 hearing

(a motion that was denied, with the hearing proceeding on

schedule) and (b) to obtain pretrial discovery (a motion

that was also denied because Brown-Younger failed to

Case: 1:12-cv-01979 Document #: 98 Filed: 07/09/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:298
establish that it was advanced in good faith, in the face of

uncontroverted evidence that she had misstated the facts as

to the publication--or more accurately the

nonpublication--of her copyrighted work).

2. Dkt. 69 is Brown-Younger’s June 18 motion for a

prove-up hearing on the then-existing default by defendant

Barnes & Noble, Inc. It is denied without prejudice, based

on that defendant’s since-filed motion to vacate the

default, which is unresolved at this point.

3. Dkt. 70 is another Brown-Younger motion requesting

discovery that was not filed until June 18, though it had

been received in the Clerk’s Office on June 15. It sought

discovery from Amazon, although Brown-Younger’s book of

poetry had never been listed on Amazon’s website. Indeed,

Brown-Younger has confirmed that she had no basis for

asserting otherwise. That motion is denied.

4. Dkt. 72 is Brown-Younger’s June 19 “Motion

Requesting Trial Demurrer-Opposition Response.” It is based

upon Brown-Younger’s position that the Alternative Dispute

Resolution Act of 1998 somehow overrides her obligation to

arbitrate her dispute with defendant Lulu, even though this

Court has twice explained to her that the statute has no

application as a matter of law. That motion is also denied.

5. Dkt. 73 is Brown-Younger’s June 20 filing captioned

“Amended Opposition Response and Responsive Memorandum,”

Case: 1:12-cv-01979 Document #: 98 Filed: 07/09/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:299
which again mistakenly advances her arguments based on the

Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998. That motion,

which has again improperly sought to challenge the

arbitration required by the Membership Agreement with Lulu

that Brown-Younger entered into, is denied as well.

6. Dkt. 75 is the June 25 Barnes & Noble motion to set

aside the entry of default against it and for leave to file

a responsive pleading. Because of the pendency of the

issuance of possible sanctions against Brown-Younger

(including possible dismissal of this action), which is set

for July 24, that motion has not been ruled upon.

7. Dkt. 88 is Brown-Younger’s June 28 “Motion To

strike Opposition Response,” which attacks the Barnes &

Noble motion referred to in the preceding paragraph. 

Although that motion has not been ruled upon, Barnes & Noble

is certainly entitled to file it. That motion is denied.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 9, 2012

Case: 1:12-cv-01979 Document #: 98 Filed: 07/09/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:300