1

 The order was entered in accordance with our memorandum opinion of

October 7, 2005. 

01-6858.081 March 19, 2008

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALEJANDRO DURAN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 01 C 6858

)

TOWN OF CICERO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

___________________________________)

EDUARDO GUDINO )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

 v. ) No. 02 C 6248

) 

TOWN OF CICERO et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The defendant Rhonda Gross has filed a “Supplement” to her

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. She argues that the order

of December 5, 2005,1 granting summary judgment in favor of Gross

and against all plaintiffs except for Joel Uribe and Heriberto

Uribe, Sr. on Count II, on the basis that no other plaintiff was

asserting a false arrest claim against Gross, was a final

disposition of any false arrest claim by Juan Carlos Uribe. The

defendant concludes that it was therefore error for the false

arrest claim of Juan Carlos Uribe to be submitted to the jury. 
-2-

The defendant has a misconception as to the nature of the

order of October 7, 2005. It was not a final judgment order, and

because it was not, it was subject to change at any time prior to

final judgment. No final judgment will occur in this case until

all post-trial motions have been ruled upon. The post-trial motion

of the Town of Cicero is still pending and is being briefed by the

parties. 

The district court has the discretion to make a

different determination of any matters that have

not been taken to judgment or determined on appeal.

Pre-judgment orders, such as motions to dismiss,

are interlocutory and may be reconsidered at any

time.

Cameo Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Percy, 800 F.2d 108, 110 (7th. Cir.

1986).

Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that Mr. Spevack, the former

attorney for the individual defendants, agreed with Mr. Cerda, Juan

Carlos Uribe’s attorney, that the claims to be submitted to the

jury would be those set forth on a chart that Mr. Spevack and Mr.

Cerda prepared and that, to that extent, the order of December 5,

2005, was modified. Counsel for the defendant Gross rejects this

argument, saying that there is no evidence to support it. 

In our view it is immaterial whether Mr. Spevack and Mr.

Cerda had an agreement or not. The fact of the matter is that all

parties who went to trial, including the defendant Gross, knew that

the claims which would be submitted to the jury would be those set

forth on the chart prepared by the parties prior to trial and
-3-

consulted by everyone – counsel, the court and the jury –constantly

throughout the trial. We regard the chart as, in effect, an

amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b)(2). Everyone knew

that Juan Carlos Uribe was claiming false arrest by Gross, evidence

was submitted to support and to rebut the claim, and a verdict form

jointly prepared by the parties was submitted to the jury

containing spaces for the jury to find in favor of Juan Carlos

Uribe or against him on his claim against Rhonda Gross for false

arrest. 

Because the order of December 5, 2005, was not a final

order, and it is therefore subject to modification at any time

prior to entry of final judgment in the case, we hereby vacate that

portion of the December 5, 2005 order that had the effect of

granting summary judgment against Juan Carlos Uribe and in favor of

Rhonda Gross on Count II of the complaint. 

The Renewed Motion of Rhonda Gross for Judgment as a Matter

of Law is denied. 

DATED: March 19, 2008

ENTER: ______________________________________________

John F. Grady, United States District Judge