bhg Order Form (06/97)

(/ C

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Namssifetee age | __James B. Moran eet
CASE NUMBER 02 C 2305 DATE 8/2/2002
CASE Donald W. Parrillo et al. Vs. Nancy L. Reilly etc. et al.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.}
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) im) Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___
(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on___set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at_
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__—_at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) General Rule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) [ FRCP41(a)(2).
(ao) «xf [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Since the motion for reconsideration

was never filed - plaintiffs choosing to appeal instead- there is no reason to continue consideration of the
petition. We direct Donald W. Parrillo and Kimberly E. Schob to appear before this court August 21, 2002,
at 10:00am. to show cause why they should not be held to be in contempt of court. Defendants in this
action shall provide for personal service upon the plaintiffs.

gal) @f [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court, A
No notices required. “of notices,
Notes mailed by judge's staff. hug 0 6 2002
Notified counsel by telephone, docketed
wv | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. 1yno9 LOMisig $9 adedog WA aie
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. N24 i)
ae: AuG,,0 © 2002
courtroom 1S :} Hd S- ony 29 date mailed notice
WAH deputy's
initials

Datehimereceived inf 2]
central Clerk’s Office

IM).



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

DONALD W. PARRILLO and
KIMBERLY E. SCHOB,

Plaintiffs,

vs. No. 02 C 2305

NANCY L. REILLY f/k/a NANCY R.
PARRILLO, DONALD W. RICE, and
JOSEPH D. BRADLEY,

ee
wt ge
we

wee veerrrerverwerervrw

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On May 23, 2002, this court enjoined Donald W. Parrillo and Kimberly E. Schob from
initiating any action anywhere relating to the assets included in the Indiana bankruptcy estate
or to the enforcement of Reilly’s judgments against him, without first having obtained leave
of this court. We also dismissed. their complaint. A motion for relief from judgment was
denied on June 20, 2002, but we granted leave to them to file a motion to reconsider by July
5, 2002. Instead, they filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2002.

In the meantime, however, they each filed, on June 10, 2002, complaints in the federal
court in Arizona which may violate the injunction. Leave of this court to file was not sought
or obtained. A petition for a rule to show cause was filed by the defendants on June 20, 2002,
but was continued on that date because of the expected filing of a motion for reconsideration,
Since the motion for reconsideration was never filed — plaintiffs choosing to appeal instead
— there is no reason to continue consideration of the petition.

The injunction remains in full force and effect, and we have full power and authority

to enforce that injunction, absent a stay. United States v. Articles of Food and Drug, 441

aA


»

No. 02 C 2305 Page2

F.Supp. 772 (E.D. Wise. 1977). We direct Donald W. Parrillo and Kimberly E. Schob to
appear before this court on August 21, 2001, at 10 a.m., to show cause why they should not
be held to be in contempt of court. Defendants in this action shall provide for personal service

upon the plaintiffs.

fra 8. Noe

Q JAMES B, MORAN
enior Judge, U. S. District Court

Ag A __, 2002.