221 F.3d 1338 (7th Cir. 2000), 98-3040, Mader v. Motorola, Inc.
|Citation:||221 F.3d 1338|
|Party Name:||Douglas P. MADER and Darla Mader, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MOTOROLA, INC. Mikel J. Harry, and Betty Crofton, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||July 25, 2000|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA7 Rule 53 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Submitted Sept. 21, 1999.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 92 C 8089. Blanche M. Manning, Judge.
Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, and Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.
This case has been fraught with procedural errors from the beginning, but despite all that it is now in a position to be decided once and for all on the merits. It concerns a contractual arrangement between plaintiff Douglas Mader and defendant Motorola, Inc., under which Mader was to work as a research consultant at Motorola's Six Sigma Research Institute (SSRI). Mader worked under written consulting agreements, the first of which was executed on May 1, 1990. In 1992, Motorola terminated its current contract with Mader (the 1992-93 agreement), on the stated ground that Mader had breached its security policy. Mr. and Mrs. Mader sued Motorola and the two individual defendants, Mikel Harry and Betty Crofton, in Illinois state court. Motorola removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment for Motorola. Mader v. Motorola, No. 92-C-8089, 1998 WL 164880 (N.D.Ill. April 3, 1998). After various proceedings that we review below, the case is now properly before us, and we affirm.
Before recounting the facts briefly, it is important to put them in context. In the district court, Motorola filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of the Maders' amended complaint. It supported that motion with a statement of uncontested facts under the then-applicable General Rule 12(M) of the Northern District of Illinois. Despite a number of requests and warnings, the Maders never filed the required responsive statement under Rule 12(N). The district court therefore ruled, as it was entitled to do, that the Maders had admitted the facts in Motorola's Rule 12(M) statement. See Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 921-22 (7th Cir.1994) (discussing Indiana's similar Local Rule 56.1); Best v. Shell Oil Co., 107 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir.1997) (taking Rule 12(M) facts as admitted when plaintiff failed to file Rule 12(N) response). Our account of the facts similarly relies on Motorola's Rule 12(M) statement...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP