UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MARY GUTIERREZ, on her own behalf and )

on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:16-CV-111-JVB-JPK

)

CITY OF EAST CHICAGO and HOUSING )

AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF EAST )

CHICAGO, )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Individual Damages 

Claims of Mary Gutierrez Upon Approval of Proposed Consent Decree [DE 129], a Stipulation to 

Enter Consent Decree Following Notice to the Class [DE 130], a Joint Motion to Dismiss City of 

East Chicago Following Notice to the Class [DE 131], and a Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees 

and Costs in Conjunction with Approval of Consent Decree and Following Notice to the Class 

[DE 132], all filed by Plaintiff Mary Gutierrez and the certified class on June 30, 2020. 

On July 1, 2020, the undersigned referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar 

for a report and recommendation on the instant motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Judge Kolar held a fairness hearing on October 26, 2020, and issued his Report and 

Recommendation on November 12, 2020. [DE 147]. The parties were given notice that they had 

fourteen days in which to file objections to the report and recommendation. No party has filed 

objections.

The Complaint in this case alleged that Defendants have a policy and practice of 

conducting warrantless non-consensual criminal searches and administrative inspections of 

apartments. The parties reached settlement and filed a proposed Consent Decree. [DE 130]. Judge 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00111-JVB-JPK document 148 filed 12/03/20 page 1 of 3
2

Kolar found that appropriate notice of the Consent Decree was given to the class and that no class 

member objected to the Consent Decree, the motion to dismiss, or the award of attorney fees. 

Judge Kolar found that the settlement itself was fair, reasonable and adequate given the strength 

of Plaintiff’s case, the expected cost of litigating the case to completion, and the lack of opposition 

to the settlement, among other factors. Judge Kolar therefore recommended that the Consent 

Decree be approved and the motion to dismiss and motion for attorney fees granted. 

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and noting the lack of objection, the 

Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [DE 147] and incorporates the Report 

and Recommendation into this Order. Accordingly, the Court:

(1) GRANTS the Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Individual Damages Claims of Mary 

Gutierrez Upon Approval of Proposed Consent Decree [DE 129] and DISMISSES the individual 

damages claims of Plaintiff Mary Gutierrez;

(2) GRANTS the Stipulation to Enter Consent Decree Following Notice to the Class [DE 

130], APPROVES the Consent Decree as a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of these 

proceedings, and ENTERS the Consent Decree;

(3) ORDERS the parties to carry out the terms of the Consent Decree promptly and in 

good faith, and to promptly file with the Court appropriate papers effecting the dismissal of this 

action after the expiration of the term of the Consent Decree;

(4) GRANTS the Joint Motion to Dismiss City of East Chicago Following Notice to the 

Class [DE 131] and DISMISSES Defendant City of East Chicago;

(5) GRANTS the Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in Conjunction with 

Approval of Consent Decree and Following Notice to the Class [DE 132] and AWARDS

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00111-JVB-JPK document 148 filed 12/03/20 page 2 of 3
3

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $35,000.00 to Plaintiffs’ counsel, to be paid as specified in the 

Consent Decree; and

(6) DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [DE 68] and 

Verified Petition for Award of Attorneys’ Fees [DE 117], per the parties’ request in the Stipulation 

to Enter Consent Decree Following Notice to the Class.

SO ORDERED on December 2, 2020.

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00111-JVB-JPK document 148 filed 12/03/20 page 3 of 3