Jinmei Zhang v. Schuster

• Decision Date: 02 March 2022
• Docket Number: 18-cv-3283
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Parties: JINMEI ZHANG, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL SCHUSTER, et al., Defendants.

JINMEI ZHANG, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL SCHUSTER, et al., Defendants.

No. 18-cv-3283

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

March 2, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Steven C. Seeger, United States District Judge

This case involves a sting operation at a local massage parlor to investigate suspicions of prostitution. Members of the community complained to the Batavia Police Department about questionable activity at the Superb Spa, including dubious advertisements and odd comings-and-goings in evening hours. The police department asked the Department of Homeland Security for help, and a joint federal-state investigation got underway.

A federal agent, Defendant Michael Schuster, went undercover. He entered the spa with a wad of cash, and requested illicit activity from Plaintiff Jinmei Zhang. According to Schuster Zhang responded by touching him in a sexual manner, at which point Schuster left the spa. The police placed her under arrest.

The state charged Zhang with a crime, but months later, the state dropped the case. At that point, Zhang filed the lawsuit at hand. She brought a collection of federal and state claims against Schuster and the police officers who participate in the raid, plus the City of Batavia.

After discovery, Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motions are granted.

Non-Compliance with the Rules

Before diving into the record, the Court begins by calling attention to Zhang's failure to comply with the Local Rules. It is not uncommon for parties to file a response to a statement of facts that does not comply with Local Rule 56.1. But here Zhang did not file a response at all.

The Local Rules require parties to follow a specific procedure when filing and opposing a motion for summary judgment. All litigants - including pro se litigants - must follow the Local Rules, or face the consequences of non-compliance. Zhang, a pro se litigant, is no exception.

Local Rule 56.1 governs the procedures for filing a motion for summary judgment. The moving party must provide a “statement of material facts that complies with LR 56.1(d) and that attaches the cited evidentiary material.” See L.R. 56.1(a)(2). That statement of facts must rest on evidence in the record, with user-friendly citations. “Each asserted fact must be supported by citation to the specific evidentiary material including the specific page number, that supports it.” See L.R. 56.1(d)(2). A district court “may disregard any asserted fact that is not supported with such a citation.” Id. A fact without evidence isn't a fact.

The moving party must submit the evidence that supports each of the proposed facts. “All evidentiary material identified in LR 56.1(a)(2) and LR 56.1(b)(3) citations must be included as numbered exhibits with the statements of fact.” See L.R. 56.1(d)(3).

Local Rule 56.1 also explains how to respond to a motion for summary judgment. The non-moving party must file a “response to the LR 56.1(a)(2) statement of material facts that complies with LR 56.1(e).” See L.R 56.1(b)(2). That response “must consist of numbered paragraphs corresponding to the numbered paragraphs” of the movant's statement of facts. See L.R. 56.1(e)(1).

To help pro se litigants, the Local Rules require parties to serve a notice that explains the procedure, so that they are not lost at sea. See L.R. 56.2. That way, unrepresented parties will receive clear instructions about what they need to file, and how they need to do it.

Substantial compliance with Local Rule 56.1 is not enough. See Ammons v. Aramark Unif. Servs., Inc., 368 F.3d 809, 817 (7th Cir. 2004). All parties, including pro se litigants, must fully comply with Local Rule 56.1. See Flint v. City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d 764, 767 (7th Cir. 2015); Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[E]ven pro se litigants must follow procedural rules.”).

Compliance is necessary for the smooth-running of the wheels of justice. The Local Rules are designed to give district courts the information that they need to assess whether a case deserves a trial. The uniformity of the procedure - across hundreds of cases on a district court's docket - promotes efficiency and speeds things along. It helps courts manage a pile of motions in a mountain of cases.

Consistent with the Local Rules, the Batavia Defendants filed a statement of undisputed facts with their motion for summary judgment. See Batavia Defs.' Statement of Facts (Dckt. No. 197). And Defendant Schuster also filed a statement of undisputed facts with his motion for summary judgment. See Def. Schuster's Statement of Facts (Dckt. No. 203). They supported each fact in their statements of facts with admissible evidence in the record. And Defendant Schuster served on Zhang a Local Rule 56.2 Notice that explained the requirements of Local Rule 56.1. See Rule 56.2 Statement (Dckt. No. 204).

But Zhang didn't respond. This Court does not mean that Zhang did not respond correctly. Instead, Zhang didn't respond at all.

Instead, she unleashed a barrage of motions on this Court. Since Defendants filed for summary judgment, Zhang has filed over 30 motions of her own, without responding to the motions for summary judgment. See Mtns. (Dckt. Nos. 213, 214, 215, 229, 230, 231, 237, 238, 239, 248, 249, 255, 256, 257, 258, 263, 265, 269, 270, 272, 273, 276, 279, 284, 286, 290, 291, 292, 295, 301, 303, 304, 311).

Zhang's motions cover a lot of ground and include multiple tries at the same request. Among other motions, Zhang moved to revoke the Court's grant of leave for Defendant Schuster to file an oversized brief (Dckt. Nos. 214, 230), moved to extract a video recording of Plaintiff's depositions (Dckt. Nos. 215, 231), moved for the judiciary to conduct a polygraph of Defendant Schuster (Dckt. No. 229), and moved for a new judge (Dckt. No. 244).

In these motions, Zhang stated that she would not respond to the motions for summary judgment until the Court resolved her motions, and that she could not respond because the Defendants failed to verify a deposition transcript. See Mtns. (Dckt. Nos. 249, 255, 257). But the Court did resolve each of her motions. And in any event, Zhang cannot set her own conditions for when she will file a response.

The Court even gave Zhang several extensions of time to respond to Defendants' motions. See 4/14/21 Order (Dckt. No. 218); 5/3/21 Order (Dckt. No. 242). But the deadline came and went months ago. And ultimately, Zhang never responded.

As a result, the Court accepts as undisputed the facts put forward (and properly supported) by Defendants. “Asserted facts may be deemed admitted if not controverted with specific citations to evidentiary material.” See L.R. 56.1(e)(3); Olivet Baptist Church v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 672 Fed.Appx. 607, 607 (7th Cir. 2017) (“The district court treated most of the [defendant's] factual submissions as unopposed, because the [plaintiff] failed to contest them in the form required by Local Rule 56.1(b). We have held that the district court is entitled to enforce that rule in precisely the way it enforced the rule in this litigation.”); Curtis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 807 F.3d 215, 218 (7th Cir. 2015) (“When a responding party's statement fails to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's statement in the manner dictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion.”).

But Zhang's failure to respond does not mean that the Defendants must prevail on the motions for summary judgment. While the material facts are undisputed, the burden remains with the movants, the Batavia Defendants and Defendant Schuster, to show that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Robinson v. Waterman, 1 F.4th 480, 483 (7th Cir. 2021); Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600, 608 (7th Cir. 2006) (“[A] nonmovant's failure to respond to a summary judgment motion, or failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1, does not, of course, automatically result in judgment for the movant.”).

So, this Court's task is to view the undisputed facts in Zhang's favor, consider the claims in light of the undisputed facts, and decide whether there is any genuine need for a trial. With those standards in mind, the Court turns to the record at hand.

Background

In early 2016, the Batavia Police Department received complaints from the community about suspicious activities and possible prostitution at the Superb Spa in Batavia, Illinois. See Batavia Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 8 (Dckt. No. 197); Def. Schuster's Statement of Facts, at ¶ 9 (Dckt. No. 203). Superb Spa was a massage parlor. See Def. Schuster's Statement of Facts, at ¶ 7. It's no longer in business.

Some of the complaints included copies of internet ads from websites known for advertising prostitution. Id. at ¶ 9. The advertisements listed Superb Spa's address and promoted “pretty Asian girls massage[s].” Id.; see also Bodyrub.com Advertisement (Dckt. No. 203-2, at 191-195 of 289); Backpage.com Email (Dckt. No. 203-2, at 196-197 of 289).

Some of the complaints came from parents of children who attended the dance studio next to Superb Spa. See Batavia Defs.' Statement of Facts, at ¶ 9 (Dckt. No. 197). Parents noticed heavy traffic in the evening hours around the spa and men going into the spa, staying for short periods of time, and leaving. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10.

Based on the complaints, the Batavia Police Chief (Gary Schira) directed Sergeant Shawn Mazza to visit Superb Spa and speak with the owner. Id. at ¶ 12. Sergeant Mazza wanted to talk with the owner about the complaints and figure out what was going on. Id. So he visited the spa in March and April 2016. Id. at ¶ 13. But the owner wasn't there, and Sergeant Mazza couldn't get the owner's contact...