Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

KAHLEIF WHITFIELD,

Plaintiff, 

-vs-

 

THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook County, 

and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20-cv-02956

Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REASSIGN TODD V. DART, 21-CV-2193,

REITINGER V. DART, 21-CV-2331, JOHNSON V. DART, 21-CV-2468, AND

BONNER V. DART, 21-CV-2474, AS RELATED UNDER LOCAL RULE 40.4

Defendants, THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook County, and COOK COUNTY, 

ILLINOIS, by their attorney KIMBERLY M. FOXX, State’s Attorney of Cook County, through 

her Special Assistant State’s Attorneys, JOHNSON & BELL, LTD., hereby move this Honorable 

Court to reassign the related cases Todd v. Dart, 21-cv-2193, Reitinger v. Dart, 21-cv-2331, 

Johnson v. Dart, 21-cv-2468, and Bonner v. Dart, 21-cv-2474, to the calendar of this Court 

pursuant to Local Rule 40.4(c). In support of their motion, Defendants state as follows:

1. On May 19, 2020, Plaintiff Kahleif Whitfield filed his complaint in this case, 

which he amended on October 8, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dart has a widespread 

practice of restraining detainees in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Am. Compl. ¶ 19, 

ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff joined Cook County under an indemnification theory pursuant to Carver 

v. Sheriff of LaSalle County, 324 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2003).

2. On November 25, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to reassign twelve other cases 

that involve factually similar allegations to the present case, and which were filed by the same 

Case: 1:20-cv-02956 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:282
Page 2 of 5

counsel in the present case, Attorneys Thomas G. Morrissey and Patrick W. Morrissey. (Mot. to 

Reassign, ECF No. 29.)

3. On February 23, 2021, this Court granted Defendants’ motion to reassign cases as 

related, finding as follows:

[T]he 13 cases Defendants identify as the “claim related set” (see 

R. 29, Mot. Reassign at 12) are related under Local Rule 

40.4(a)(2), because they involve several of the same issues of fact 

or law. The Court also finds that reassignment is appropriate under 

Local Rule 40.4(b), because (i) all 13 cases are pending in this 

District; (ii) the handling of these cases by the same Judge will 

save considerable judicial resources; (iii) none of the cases have 

progressed to the point where designating them as related would 

substantially delay proceedings in any of the cases; and (iv) the 

cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding.

(Order, ECF No. 39.)

4. This Court ordered that the twelve other cases be reassigned for all purposes to 

the Court’s calendar as related to this action. (Id.)

5. On March 4, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to reassign four additional cases 

that involve factually similar allegations to the reassigned cases and that meet the requirements 

for reassignment under Local Rule 40.4. (Mot. to Reassign Additional Cases, ECF No. 40.) 

Plaintiff opposes this motion and has filed a response to Defendants’ motion. (Pl.’s Resp., ECF 

No. 42.) The Court has not requested or ordered a reply brief from Defendants and has not ruled 

on Defendants’ motion as of the filing date of the instant motion.

6. On April 6, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to reassign Pearson v. Dart, 21-cv1521, that involves factually similar allegations to the reassigned cases and that meet the 

requirements for reassignment under Local Rule 40.4. (Mot. to Reassign Additional Cases, ECF 

No. 40.) The Court has not requested or ordered a response brief from Plaintiff or a reply brief 

Case: 1:20-cv-02956 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:283
Page 3 of 5

from Defendants and has not ruled on Defendants’ motion as of the filing date of the instant 

motion.

7. Since this Court’s February 23, 2021, order, counsel for the plaintiffs in the above 

related cases [collectively, “Related Cases”] filed four additional cases that involve factually 

similar allegations to the reassigned cases and that meet the requirements for reassignment under 

Local Rule 40.4. The factually similar cases include (with complaints attached as exhibits):

a. Todd v. Dart, 21-cv-2193 (pending before Judge Charles R. Norgle) [Exhibit A]

b. Reitinger v. Dart, 21-cv-2331 (pending before Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer)

[Exhibit B]

c. Johnson v. Dart, 21-cv-2468 (pending before Judge John Z. Lee) [Exhibit C]

d. Bonner v. Dart, 21-cv-2474 (pending before Judge Jorge L. Alonso) [Exhibit D]

8. Plaintiffs, Donnell Todd, Salvador Reitinger, Andre Johnson, and Percy Bonner

are represented by the same plaintiffs’ counsel in the Related Cases.

9. Local Rule 40.4(c) provides that a motion for reassignment based on relatedness 

may be filed by any party to a case. The motion must be filed in the lowest-numbered case of the 

claimed related set.

10. Local Rule 40.4(a)(2) provides that two or more civil cases may be related if one 

or more cases involve some of the same issues of fact or law.

11. While the complaints in Todd v. Dart, 21-cv-2193, Reitinger v. Dart, 21-cv-2331,

Johnson v. Dart, 21-cv-2468, and Bonner v. Dart, 21-cv-2474, rely on subtle factual distinctions, 

the complaints are substantially similar factually and legally to the complaints in the Related 

Cases.

Case: 1:20-cv-02956 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:284
Page 4 of 5

12. Specifically, the complaints allege that Defendant Dart has a practice of 

restraining detainees in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the same allegation set 

forth in the Related Cases. The complaints in Todd, Reitinger, Johnson, and Bonner also allege a 

claim of unconstitutional conditions of confinement based on Defendant Dart’s response to the 

coronavirus. This is the same allegation set forth in the Related Cases, with the exception of four 

cases that do not include this allegation.

13. Local Rule 40.4(b) provides that a related case may be reassigned to the calendar 

of the judge assigned to the earlier-numbered case if (1) the cases are pending in this Court; (2) 

the handling of the cases by the same judge is likely to result in a substantial saving of judicial 

time and effort; (3) the earlier case has not progressed to the point where designating later filed 

cases as related would be likely to delay the proceedings in the earlier case substantially; and (4) 

the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding.

14. Todd v. Dart, 21-cv-2193, Reitinger v. Dart, 21-cv-2331, Johnson v. Dart, 21-cv2468, and Bonner v. Dart, 21-cv-2474, and the Related Cases are pending in the Northern 

District of Illinois.

15. Reassigning Todd v. Dart, 21-cv-2193, Reitinger v. Dart, 21-cv-2331, Johnson v. 

Dart, 21-cv-2468, and Bonner v. Dart, 21-cv-2474, to this Honorable Court would result in 

substantial saving of judicial time and effort by allowing these factually and legally similar cases 

to be heard by one judge as opposed to multiple judges. It is anticipated that the plaintiffs in each 

of these cases will seek to depose similar, if not identical, witnesses, which will include the same 

employees of Defendants Dart and Cook County across the cases. It would be inefficient to 

depose the same witnesses in each related case, especially when the testimony will substantially 

be the same.

Case: 1:20-cv-02956 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:285
Page 5 of 5

16. The present case has not progressed to the point where designating later filed 

cases as related would be likely to delay the proceedings in this case substantially. Similar to the 

present case, the Related Cases are in the very early stages of written discovery.

17. Todd v. Dart, 21-cv-2193, Reitinger v. Dart, 21-cv-2331, Johnson v. Dart, 21-cv2468, and Bonner v. Dart, 21-cv-2474, and the Related Cases are susceptible of disposition in a 

single proceeding.

18. All the requirements are met for reassignment under Local Rule 40.4.

19. Defense counsel reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel to ask whether Plaintiff will 

agree to this motion, but Plaintiff did not respond to defense counsel’s inquiry as of the filing of 

this motion.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant this 

motion and reassign Todd v. Dart, 21-cv-2193, Reitinger v. Dart, 21-cv-2331, Johnson v. Dart, 

21-cv-2468, and Bonner v. Dart, 21-cv-2474, to the calendar of this Honorable Court.

Respectfully Submitted,

KIMBERLY M. FOXX

State’s Attorney of Cook County

Dated: June 18, 2021 /s/ Samuel D. Branum

Special Assistant State’s Attorney

Brian P. Gainer (gainerb@jbltd.com)

Monica Burkoth (burkothm@jbltd.com)

Lisa M. McElroy (mcelroyl@jbltd.com)

Samuel D. Branum (branums@jbltd.com)

Johnson & Bell, Ltd.

33 W. Monroe, Ste. 2700

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 372-0770

Case: 1:20-cv-02956 Document #: 44 Filed: 06/18/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:286