:
Mingigager Fordson,

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other

Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge

Mail AO 450 form,

CASE NUMBER 03 C 994 DATE 5/12/2003
CASE Christine Hirsch vs. Diner’s Club International, Ltd.
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
DOCKET ENTRY:
@) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due
4 oa Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Q 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) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) Cl Local Rule 41.1. CHFRCP41(a)(1) C1 FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Accordingly, without expressing any ultimate
view on the subject, this Court must necessarily vacate Order II - - and it does. No stay of this action will
be in effect until further order of court. Instead, Diners club’s counsel is ordered to file a memorandum
in response to Hirsches’ Memorandum on or before May 22, 2003, and the subject will be addressed at
the previously set May 29, 2003 status hearing date.
(dl) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court. Document
No notices required. vumbet ot votes Number
UY | Notices mailed by judge's staff. MAY 12 2003

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date dackoled

Ll MA

5/12/2003

SN

date mailed notice

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

SN

Batons eoeived i,

smailing deputy initials

ty 1h éentral Clerk's Office |



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTINE HIRSCH and DAVID HIRSCH,

Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
v. ) No. 03 C 994
)
DINER'S CLUB INTERNATIONAL, LTD., )

)

)

Defendant .

MAY 1 2 2003

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Because counsel for Christine and David Hirsch (collectively
“Hirsches”) had failed to comply with the directive contained in
this Court's April 15, 2003 memorandum order (“Order I”) to file
by April 28 “a statement as to reasons if any that the alleged
promise to arbitrate should not be complied with,” this Court
promptly issued an April 29 memorandum order (“Order II”) staying
this action pursuant to 9 U.S.C. §3. Order II was premised on
the contractual provision requiring such arbitration that had
been filed by counsel for Diners Club International, Ltd.
(“Diners Club”) .

Now Hirsches' counsel has belatedly filed a Memorandum
Regarding Arbitration challenging the applicability of the

document on which Diners Club relies.’ That Memorandum advances

+ Hirsches' counsel offers a wholly unpersuasive reason for
his delay in filing. Order I's final paragraph had ordered
Diners Club to file a copy of the arbitration document “on or
before April 28, 2003.” In the very next sentence Hirsches were
ordered to file their statement of reasons “{w]ithin the same
time period.” Hirsches counsel says he somehow understood that
order as giving him 13 days after the Diners Club filing (he used



several reasons that call the existence of any agreement to
arbitrate into serious question.

Accordingly, without expressing any ultimate view on the
subject, this Court must necessarily vacate Order II--and it
does. No stay of this action will be in effect until further
order of court. Instead, Diners Club's counsel is ordered to
file a memorandum in response to Hirsches' Memorandum on or
before May 22, 2003, and the subject will be addressed at the

previously-set May 29, 2003 status hearing date.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: May 12, 2003

the interval between the April 15 issuance of Order I and the
April 28 outside date for the Diners Club filing as the source of
that 13-day assumption). Needless to say, this Court knows quite
well how to state a deadline date or a time interval if it wants
to. Because the Diners Club order was framed in terms of a
filing “on or before” a specified date, the use of “within the
same time period” in the next sentence plainly referred back to
the identical due date. But fortunately for Hirsches, their
counsel's current filing has done better in substantive terms
than in his reading of Order I.