Cooney v. Casady

• Decision Date: 21 January 2010
• Docket Number: No. 09 C 1920.,09 C 1920.
• Citation: 680 F.Supp.2d 942
• Parties: Deborah Orlando COONEY, Plaintiff, v. Rhonda CASADY, Andrew Sosnowski, and Lesley Magnabosco, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

680 F.Supp.2d 942

Deborah Orlando COONEY, Plaintiff,
v.
Rhonda CASADY, Andrew Sosnowski, and Lesley Magnabosco, Defendants.

No. 09 C 1920.

United States District Court,
N.D. Illinois,
Eastern Division.

Decided: Jan. 21, 2010.

Deborah Orlando Cooney, Chicago, IL, pro se.

Russell C. Green, Law Offices of Russell Green, Thomas Carl Crooks, Attorney at Law, Rhonda Lee Casady, Rhonda L. Casady, Jerome Wiener, James Roland Griffin, Schain, Burney, Ross & Citron, Ltd., Timothy Joseph McGonegle, Timothy J. McGonegle, of Counsel, Chicago, IL, Thomas James Long, Norton, Mancini, Weiler & Deano, Wheaton, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ELAINE E. BUCKLO, District Judge.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has brought suit against two attorneys, defendants Casady and Sosnowski, who represented the Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") during plaintiffs administrative appeal of state court proceedings relating to custody of her children, and a court reporter, defendant Magnabosco, who plaintiff claims was responsible for alterations in the official transcripts of those proceedings. On September 11, 2009, I denied defendants' motions to dismiss. Cooney v. Casady, 652 F.Supp.2d 948, 950 (N.D.I11.2009). Defendants have moved for reconsideration, arguing that I should alter my opinion based on a recent Seventh Circuit opinion, Cooney v. Rossiter, et al, 583 F.3d 967 (7th Cir.2009). For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion to reconsider is denied.

[680 F.Supp.2d 943]

In my September 11, 2009 opinion, I concluded, among other things, that plaintiff stated a claim for civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In so holding, I rejected defendants' assertion that plaintiff must plead a "meeting of the minds" under controlling Seventh Circuit caselaw. Casady, 652 F.Supp.2d at 958. Further, I concluded that plaintiff met applicable pleading requirements by indicating " 'the parties, general purpose, and approximate date, so that the defendant has notice of what he is charged with.'" Id. (quoting Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 764 (7th Cir.2003)).

In their motions to reconsider, defendants point to the recent Cooney opinion in an effort to convince me to alter my original conclusion. Cooney is a case involving the same plaintiff as in this case, and springs, generally speaking, from the same custody battle. In Cooney, plaintiff brought a § 1983 action against the judge in the child custody proceedings, the courtappointed representative of...