‘

Minute Order Form (06/97)
United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois
Name of Assigned Jud Sitting Judge if Othe
enor Magistrate Judge James B. Moran than ‘assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 5130 ’ DATE 3/16/2004
CASE DARLENE MOORE vs. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, 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:
03) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due .
(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing{held/continued to) [set for/re-set for} on set for at
(()) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for] on set for at :
”) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for] on at
(8) a (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
OOFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) C1 FRCP41(a)(2).
‘ao) a {Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file
a third amended complaint is denied
dai) gg [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. ues of eons
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. MAR a 04
ao | Docketing to mail notices. H4
Mail AO 450 form. i ,
0D LOMLSIO S a a
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. 28109 wey $4
courtroom: OS :2 kg LI “2 anil: ess aie mee
ls deputy's sig hd Lb asi All
initials
Date/time received in
central Cleif’s' Offic” 7 smaing deputy initala

Ler re


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

EASTERN DIVISION
DARLENE MOORE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 02 C 5130 2
) “te
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., ) rier &@
) 18a
Defendants. ) 4
MORAND PINION, ER

Plaintiff wants to file a third amended complaint, bringing the City back in. The City
opposes, convinced that its earlier dismissal was supposed to be with prejudice. Both plaintiff
and the City have, with admirable candor, traced the somewhat convoluted procedural history
leading up to the dismissal and its aftermath.

We question, however, whether the City can now be sued on federal claims. The events
giving rise to the claims occurred on September 11, 2001, well over two years ago. A Rule 41(a)
dismissal followed by a refiling must satisfy the statute of limitations, Adam: ever Bros.
Co., 874 F.2d 393, 395 (7" Cir. 1989), and this does not. Thus, on the federal claims, it is as if
the City had never been named as a party and now, after the statute has run, plaintiff seeks
to add it as a party.

Plaintiff also seeks to file two state law claims against the City, one on the basis of
respondeat superior and the other indemnification. They are unnecessary, as the City does not
dispute that the individual officers were acting within the scope of their employment and are

entitled to indemnification. They also appear to be too late (except, possibly, indemnification,



No. 02 C 5130 Page2

as the obligation does not specifically arise until there is a judgment against the police officers).
State law, 735 ILCS 5/L3-217, extends the time for refiling in some instances, but none is
applicable here. “No action which is voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff ... may be filed
where the time for commencing the action has expired.”

The motion for leave to file is denied. And if we are wrong about this, plaintiff can file

a motion for reconsideration.

‘
JAMES B. MORAN
mnlor Judge, U.S. District Court

Mach, Jb, 2004,