“~

Migute Qyder Form (06197)
‘na

|

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

N of Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Other
ge Magistrate 3udge James B. Moran than Assigned Sudge
+
CASE NUMBER 01 C 8921 Bass: DATE 6/14/2002
CASE Kathleen Pappas vs. Southwest Partners, Inc. etc.
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

of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
y
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) QO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) : oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.
(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon____—sset ffor___—_aat
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on__setfor__at
© :0O Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor___—sat__—
am , 0 Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at
(8) 'o (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) (General Rule 21 OFRCP4I1(a)(1)  FRCP41(a)(2).
(io) | il [Other docket entry] / Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. The motion to dismiss is denied.

Status hearing set for July 10, 2002 at 9:15am.

(il) | [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
lo notices req umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

JUN 17 2002

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

V | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. 14N09 Loutsia's:
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. Mua sa
| - Ebel Hg
we | Be UNNE 20
initials G t Usithse ved in ; 7
_.___ central Clerks Office iaing deputy inital



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DOCKE TEN
EASTERN DIVISION
: JUN 1 7 2002
KATHLEEN PAPPAS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 01 C 8921
)
SOUTHWEST PARTNERS, INC., d/b/a)
WILLIAM BUICK, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff claims she contracted for an extended service contract on a vehicle she
purchased from defendant and defendant did not purchase it. She also claims that she paid
considerably more than the price stated on the Monroney sticker, which included more items
‘than she got, and that the only reason she knows that is that she complained months later to
the manufacturer about the absence of a sticker, and then it was supplied. Defendant has
i
furnished an affidavit stating that an extended service contract was purchased (although not
from the same company or on the same terms previously represented). And it contends it can
sell a vehicle for whatever the buyer will pay. It moves to dismiss.
The motion to dismiss is denied. Defendant concedes the extended service contract
' motion is one for summary judgment, which was filed in lieu of an answer. It is premature.
‘Perhaps defendant is right, but there has been no discovery and plaintiff is entitled to
reasonable discovery before contending with a summary judgment motion. We are also not

persuaded that a claim that charging a price well in excess of that stated on a Monroney

' sticker, without disclosing the sticker, is perfectly justifiable.

JAMES B. MORAN

nior Judge, U. S. District Court
‘ a 14, 2002. WA