.

No. 02 C 4816 Page 3

provides that a person who was a minor at the time of an accident can bring a suit within two
years after they reach the age of eighteen. Plaintiffs allege that Shadia Slaich was born
October 14, 1981. Inasmuch as she turned eighteen on October 14, 1999, her claims would
have been timely only if they were brought by October 14, 2001. This suit was commenced five
months after that deadline.

For the above reasons, defendants’ motion is granted and counts I and I] are dismissed.

fares 8. Movame

| JAMES B. MORAN
Ss

enlor Judge, U. S. District Court
0.6.99, 2002.


M2“ Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

“p)

Name of Ange Jee James B, Moran pete
CASE NUMBER 02 C 4816 DATE 10/29/2002
CASE Ezzat Slaieh et al. Vs. Ill Central RR et al.
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.]
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due
@) Oo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon___setfor___at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor se at_
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—ssetfor__——sat_—
(@) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at
(8) o (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at
(9) oOo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 COFRCP41(a)(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) =o [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendants’ motion is granted and
counts I and II are dismissed. Status hearing set for October 31, 2002 at 9:15am. to stand.
ab [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required,

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone,

a | Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
deputy's
initials

WAH

No notices required, advised in open court

>

awmber of notices

OCT 3.1 2002

date docketed ny

ole giq

Date/time received in

central Clerk's Office aailing deputy initials



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

EZZAT SLAIEH, NADIA SLAIEH.
natural parents and next friends of
SHADIA SLAIEH, a minor,
Plaintiffs,
No. 02 C 4816

vs.

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD, et al.,

DOCKETED

OCT 3 1 2090

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs bring this 16-count complaint against various defendants alleging negligence,
breach of warranty, and product liability. Defendants Illinois Central Railroad Company
(inois Central) and National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) now move to
dismiss plaintiffs’ negligence claims in counts I and Il. For the following reasons, defendants’
motion is granted.

This lawsuit arises from injuries sustained by Shadia Slaich, a minor, in a train
derailment that occurred on March 15, 1999, in Bourbonnais, Illinois, Her parents filed this
suit on her behalf in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
on March 14, 2002. The Mississippi court found that venue did not properly lie in Mississippi
and transferred the suit here, finding that a substantial part of the events giving rise to
plaintiffs’ claims arose in the Northern District of Ilinois. (Case # 02 C 256 Opinion and Order,
May 29, 2002 (S.D.Miss.)). Winois Central and Amtrak move to dismiss the negligence claims

against them for failing to meet Illinois’ statute of limitations for personal injury claims.



me

No. 02 C 4816 Page2

Since this case was transferred to us for improper venue, we apply the choice-of-law
rules of the transferee court. Koutsoubos v. Casanave, 816 F.Supp. 472, (N.D.II 1993). Under
Illinois choice-of-law rules, courts apply their own forum state’s statutes of limitations. ABF
Capital Corp. v. McLauchlan, 167 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1014 (N.D.I. 2001). Under Hlinois law
plaintiffs had two years after the cause of action accrued in which to file the negligence claims,
735 ILCS 5/13-202. They did not file within the time allotted.

Plaintiffs ask that if we find the filing untimely, we excuse the untimeliness by applying
equitable tolling. Equitable tolling is appropriate if defendants actively misled plaintiffs, if
they had been prevented from asserting their rights, or if they timely asserted their rights
mistakenly in the wrong forum. Noakes v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 312 IlApp.3d
965, 968, 729 N.E.2d 59, 62 (Ist Dist. 2000). The last situation is not present — plaintiffs did
not timely assert their rights in the Mississippi court. In support of a finding that plaintiffs
had been misled or prevented from asserting their rights, they submit a letter sent by their
attorney to defendants, dated June 21, 1999, that references correspondence between the
parties regarding the train accident. Plaintiffs assert that the letter shows that they were
engaged in good faith negotiations and that defendants had notice that a suit could follow. But
alleged settlement negotiations early in the limitations period and notice of a possible lawsuit
do not excuse plaintiffs from filing within the statute of limitations, Phelan v. Keiser, 312
T_App.3d 573, 727 N.E.2d 390 (5th Dist. 2000), Plaintiffs offer no evidence that they have
been misled or prevented “in an extraordinary way” from asserting their rights, and equitable

tolling is therefore not appropriate. Noakes, 312 Il.App.3d at 968, 729 N,E.2d at 62.

In the alternative, plaintiffs request that their claims be dismissed without prejudice

so that they can bring them under a different statute. They cite 735 ILCS 5/13-211, which