Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc.
Decision Date | 30 October 2015 |
Docket Number | 11 C 6594 |
Citation | 142 F.Supp.3d 663 |
Parties | Thomas Mervyn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., Newesco, Inc., Nelson Westerberg International, and Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Marvin Alan Miller, Andrew Szot, Lori Ann Fanning, Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller
Law LLC, Chicago, IL, Edward Dennis McNamara, Jr., McNamara & Evans, Springfield, IL, for Plaintiff.
David H. Levitt, Steven M. Puiszis, David H. Levitt, Nabil G. Foster, Steven M. Puiszis, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
In this putative class action against Nelson Westerberg, Inc., Newesco, Inc., Nelson Westerberg International (collectively "Newesco"), and Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Thomas Mervyn alleges violations of 49 C.F.R. § 376.12, a provision of the Truth–in–Leasing regulations promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to implement the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, Pub.L. No. 96–296, 94 Stat. 793 ( ), as well as common law unjust enrichment. Docs. 1, 27. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), except insofar as the complaint sought the remedies of disgorgement, restitution, or constructive trust for the § 376.12 claims. Docs. 108–09 (reported at 2012 WL 6568338 (N.D.Ill.Dec. 17, 2012) ).
Defendants moved for summary judgment, Doc. 135, the court granted Mervyn's request for additional discovery under Rule 56(d), Doc. 156, and Defendants supplemented and renewed their summary judgment motion, Doc. 168. The court then denied the renewed summary judgment motion. Docs. 232, 261 (reported at 76 F.Supp.3d 715 (N.D.Ill.2014)). In so doing, the court addressed certain issues—whether § 376.12 governs only the content of the parties' lease or whether it also requires compliance therewith, and whether the unjust enrichment claim could proceed given the existence of a written agreement—on the merits. With respect to whether Defendants actually breached the lease—which, unlike the other issues, required a relatively deep dive into the record—the court denied summary judgment on the ground that Defendants had violated Local Rule 56.1 by filing briefs that cited directly to the record materials attached to the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses rather than to the statements and responses themselves.
Defendants have asked the court to reconsider its Local Rule 56.1 ruling. Doc. 277. They argue that Local Rule 56.1 does not require parties to cite the Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses themselves or, put another way, does not prohibit parties from directly citing the record materials cited by and attached to those statements and responses. Defendants correctly observe that Local Rule 56.1 does not expressly impose that requirement. But in applying Local Rule 56.1 over the past fifteen years, decisions from this District have consistently articulated that requirement. See, e.g., FirstMerit Bank, N.A. v. 2200 North Ashland, LLC, 2014 WL 6065817, at *4 (N.D.Ill.Nov. 13, 2014) (); Thorncreek Apartments III, LLC v. Vill. of Park Forest, 970 F.Supp.2d 828, 838–39 (N.D.Ill.2013) (same); Allied Bldg. Prods. Corp. v. Pinsler, 2013 WL 2384268, at *2 (); Ricks v. U.S. Alliance Fire Protection, Inc., 2013 WL 1397707, at *1 (N.D.Ill.Apr. 5, 2013) (); Morningwar e , Inc. v. Hearthware Home Prods. Inc., 2012 WL 3721350, at *3 (N.D.Ill.Aug. 27, 2012) () ; Jacobeit v. Rich Twp. High Sch. Dist. 227, 2012 WL 1044509, at *2 (N.D.Ill.Mar. 28, 2012) (same); Loop Paper Recycling, Inc. v. JC Horizon Ltd., 2011 WL 3704954, at *5 n. 8 (N.D.Ill.Aug. 17, 2011) (same); LaSalvia v. City of Evanston, 806 F.Supp.2d 1043, 1046 (N.D.Ill.2011) (); BI3, Inc. v. Hamor, 2011 WL 1231156, at *2 (N.D.Ill.Mar. 30, 2011) (same); Int'l Tax Advisors, Inc. v. Tax Law Assocs., LLC, 2011 WL 612093, at *3 (N.D.Ill.Feb. 15, 2011) () ; Byrd–Tolson v. Supervalu, Inc., 500 F.Supp.2d 962, 966 (N.D.Ill.2007) (); Daoust v. Abbott Labs., 2006 WL 2711844, at *4 (N.D.Ill.Sept. 19, 2006) (same); Alvi v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi., 2006 WL 1762032, at *2 (N.D.Ill.June 23, 2006) () ; Madaffari v. Metrocall Cos. Grp. Policy GL, 2005 WL 1458071, at *1 (N.D.Ill.June 15, 2005) (); Solaia Tech. LLC v. ArvinMeritor, LLC, 361 F.Supp.2d 797, 826 (N.D.Ill.2005) (); Ciesielski v. Hooters of Am., Inc., 2004 WL 1699020, at *1 (N.D.Ill.July 28, 2004) () ; Interlease Aviation Investors II (ALOHA) L.L.C. v. Vanguard Airlines, Inc., 2004 WL 1149397, at *15 (N.D.Ill.May 20, 2004) () ; Denari v. Genesis Ins. Co., 2003 WL 22964371, at *1 n. 3 (N.D.Ill.Dec. 15, 2003) () (citation omitted); Buxton v. Equifax Credit Info. Servs., Inc., 2003 WL 22844245, at *1 n. 1 (N.D.Ill.Dec. 1, 2003) () ; Pease v. Production Workers Union of Chi., 2003 WL 22669039, at *9 n. 12 (N.D.Ill.Nov. 10, 2003) () ; Kaup a s v. Vill. of Univ. Park, 2003 WL 22048173, at *1 n. 3 (N.D.Ill.Sept. 2, 2003) (); Malec v. Klatzco, 101 F.Supp.2d 1066, 1071 n. 3 (N.D.Ill.2000) (same); Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 586 (N.D.Ill.2000) ().
It is not the undersigned's ordinary practice to string-cite three pages of decisions that stand for the same proposition. An exception is made in this instance given Defendants' suggestion that the undersigned's interpretation of Local Rule 56.1 is idiosyncratic and novel. As the above-cited decisions demonstrate, it is neither. Authors of those decisions include this District's former chief judge, current chief judge, and next chief judge, not to mention appointees of the last four two-term Presidents. In fact, the requirement that parties cite Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses rather than directly to record materials was articulated in the seminal decision on Local Rule 56.1, Malec v. Sanford, which has been cited in over 540 subsequent opinions. Litigants in this District are well aware of that requirement, as confirmed by the fact that nearly all parties moving for or opposing summary judgment, even pro se litigants, manage to comply—just as most plaintiffs moving to amend their complaints attach proposed amended pleadings to their motions even though that requirement is set forth in case law interpreting Rule 15(a)(2) rather than...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gross v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co.
...Gross's direct citations to summary judgment evidence in his amended response memorandum. See, e.g., Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., 142 F.Supp.3d 663, 664‒66 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (collecting cases). Next, both sides contend that the evidence their opponent cites does not support, in part or......
-
Moje v. Fed. Hockey League, LLC, Case No. 15-CV-8929
...National Casualty's direct citation to Kirnan's deposition on page 11 of its reply, ECF No. 110. See Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc. , 142 F.Supp.3d 663, 664–65 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (collecting numerous standing for the proposition that Local Rule 56.1 prohibits parties from citing evidentiar......
-
ABC Acquisition Co. v. AIP Prods. Corp.
...of those facts. N.D. Ill. Local R. 56.1. The memorandum cites to the separate statement of facts, Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, Inc., 142 F.Supp.3d 663, 664-65 (N.D. Ill. 2015), and the separate statement of facts cites to specific pages or paragraphs of the documents and materials in the re......
-
Thorncreek Apartments I, LLC v. Vill. of Park Forest, an Ill. Mun. Corp.
...motion was denied summarily for noncompliance with Local Rule 56.1, 970 F. Supp. 2d at 838-39; see generally Mervyn v. Nelson Westerberg, 142 F. Supp. 3d 663 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (addressing in greater detail the same kind of noncompliance), the 195.25 hours of work that it spent on the motion ......