I've seen a lot of people writing on this board about what's going on with the multitude of lawsuits that have been filed against Northwestern and various individuals -- the litany of cases was cataloged in recent article here by Mike Shelton. But it didn't seem to me that anyone was speaking (or writing as it were) with any actual knowledge. So I spent a few minutes this morning on Circuit Clerk Martinez's website seeing what I could find. There is a search function for cases filed in the Law Division, so everything I post here is public information.
First a couple of basic thoughts. The cases are filed in state court, the Circuit Court of Cook County, as opposed to federal court. Had there been federal causes of action, then the actual electronically filed pleadings would be available on Pacer for all to see. The applicable period of limitations for bringing a personal injury claim in Illinois -- commonly referred to as the Statute of Limitations -- is two years from the time the cause of action accrued, which basically means when the tortious conduct took place. As others have noted in various threads, the possibility of motion practice in defending these claims is very likely. One such basis for dismissal would be based upon the putative Plaintiff's failure to comply with the applicable period of limitations. There are ways that creative lawyers can attempt to work around statutes of limitations based upon "tolling," but based upon my brief searches on-line, it would appear that Lloyd Yates attended NU until 2015, that Ramon Diaz last attended NU in '08, that Warren Long last attended NU in '18, and that Tom Carnifax last attended NU in '19. Each of these individuals -- or, rather their lawyers -- will have to do some serious tap dancing to even get to the point where the defendants will be required to respond to their lawsuits on the merits. And none of that will occur any time soon, since at this point there is no proof of service of any summons issued in any of these cases which has been filed and shows up on the Clerk's computer system.
Unlike in federal court, where a Plaintiff can simply mail a copy of his lawsuit to the Defendant(s) along with a request for a waiver of summons, in the state court system the case doesn't even get started until the defendant is served (basically, handed) a copy of the Complaint. Once the Defendant gets served, the clock starts ticking for the Defendant to appear (usually through counsel, which will undoubtedly be the case here) and file a "responsive pleading." That will usually be either an answer or a motion to dismiss (see statute of limitations discussion, above).
Second, I've seen various people -- hopefully non-lawyers because this is basic litigation practice -- on this Board writing that these cases are in the "discovery" phase of the litigation. They are NOT. No written discovery requests have been propounded by any of the lawyers for the Plaintiffs at this stage of the proceedings (at least they haven't filed proofs of service for such discovery requests which they are required to do), and it is doubtful that the discovery process will even start for a couple more months at the earliest.
As for the lawsuits themselves, as of this morning, here is the status;
John Doe 1 vs. NU, Schill, Morty, Trustees (in official capacity only), Gragg, and Fitz [23 L7098] was filed on July 18. An order was entered (on all of the John Doe cases!) allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with a fictitious name. On 8/11 summonses were issued by the Clerk, tho interestingly the on-line listing does not reflect that JD 1's lawyers even took out a summons for Fitz. In fact, I did not see a summons for Fitz on the Clerk's docket in any of the cases in which he is named. The case is set for an initial case management hearing on 9/21 before Judge Heneghan in Room 2202. At those hearings, the Plaintiff's lawyer will generally report on the status of service, an appearance by any served defendants, and the status of any responsive pleadings. I think that it's fair to say that no discovery will even begin prior to the initial case management conference, and if Defendants have been served and motions to dismiss are contemplated, that will generally delay the start of discovery, perhaps until those motions are resolved.
John Doe 2 v. same defendants + Phillips [23 L 7221] was filed on July 20. Again summons issued against all Defendants but Fitz on 8/11. Case management set for 9/27 in front of J. Cushing in room 2206 at the Daley Center -- a public hearing if anyone is interested.
John Doe 3 v. same Defendants [23 L7226] was also filed on July 20. Again summons issued against all Defendants but Fitz on 8/11, and case management before Judge Durkin (Rm. 2203) on 9/19.
John Doe 5 [23L7904] has its initial case mgt date on 10/11 before Judge Hannon (Room 2205)
Lloyd Yates v. Northwestern only was filed on 7/24 [23 L 7300}, and has a case mgt date of 9/26 before Judge Harris (Room 2207).
John Doe 4, naming only Northwestern [23 L 7396] was filed on July 26, and has a case mgt date of 9/27 before Judge Johnson (Room 2201).
Warren Long v. Northwestern only [23 L 7485] has a case mgt date of 9/26 before Judge Harris (Room 2207).
Ramon Diaz v. NU, Fitz and Phillips [23 L 7712] has a case mgt date of 10/5 before Judge Flanagan (Room 2210].
Tom Carnifax v. NU only was filed on 8/2 [23 L 7713] has a case mgt date of 10/5 (but my bad note taking doesn't show which Judge, so you'll have to look it up if you want to go watch the show).
I would say that it's possible that these cases could, at some point in the future, be consolidated before a single motion judge from the Law Division of the Circuit Court. My recollection is that the Judge assigned to the first filed case gets the original assignment, but each party has a right to a change of judge, so that can also result in some shifting if there is ultimately a consolidation motion filed.
Bottom line? Just because the Defendants have knowledge that they've been sued, until they get served they aren't required to do anything in response to the case. Lots of interesting issues out there that will be hashed out in the coming weeks and months (why no summons issued for Coach Fitz? do they think they can serve him thru Northwestern, his now former-employer? Will the named Defendants each be provided with their own lawyers [as in big, big $$$]? Will NU cave and write checks even if they have valid legal defenses to claims by many of these Plaintiffs? When will Webb/Sidley file for Fitz, or will that an all of these cases get settled due to NU's lack of appetite for the necessarily public litigation of these cases?). However, this is the Circuit Court of Cook County and nothing happens quickly.
First a couple of basic thoughts. The cases are filed in state court, the Circuit Court of Cook County, as opposed to federal court. Had there been federal causes of action, then the actual electronically filed pleadings would be available on Pacer for all to see. The applicable period of limitations for bringing a personal injury claim in Illinois -- commonly referred to as the Statute of Limitations -- is two years from the time the cause of action accrued, which basically means when the tortious conduct took place. As others have noted in various threads, the possibility of motion practice in defending these claims is very likely. One such basis for dismissal would be based upon the putative Plaintiff's failure to comply with the applicable period of limitations. There are ways that creative lawyers can attempt to work around statutes of limitations based upon "tolling," but based upon my brief searches on-line, it would appear that Lloyd Yates attended NU until 2015, that Ramon Diaz last attended NU in '08, that Warren Long last attended NU in '18, and that Tom Carnifax last attended NU in '19. Each of these individuals -- or, rather their lawyers -- will have to do some serious tap dancing to even get to the point where the defendants will be required to respond to their lawsuits on the merits. And none of that will occur any time soon, since at this point there is no proof of service of any summons issued in any of these cases which has been filed and shows up on the Clerk's computer system.
Unlike in federal court, where a Plaintiff can simply mail a copy of his lawsuit to the Defendant(s) along with a request for a waiver of summons, in the state court system the case doesn't even get started until the defendant is served (basically, handed) a copy of the Complaint. Once the Defendant gets served, the clock starts ticking for the Defendant to appear (usually through counsel, which will undoubtedly be the case here) and file a "responsive pleading." That will usually be either an answer or a motion to dismiss (see statute of limitations discussion, above).
Second, I've seen various people -- hopefully non-lawyers because this is basic litigation practice -- on this Board writing that these cases are in the "discovery" phase of the litigation. They are NOT. No written discovery requests have been propounded by any of the lawyers for the Plaintiffs at this stage of the proceedings (at least they haven't filed proofs of service for such discovery requests which they are required to do), and it is doubtful that the discovery process will even start for a couple more months at the earliest.
As for the lawsuits themselves, as of this morning, here is the status;
John Doe 1 vs. NU, Schill, Morty, Trustees (in official capacity only), Gragg, and Fitz [23 L7098] was filed on July 18. An order was entered (on all of the John Doe cases!) allowing the Plaintiff to proceed with a fictitious name. On 8/11 summonses were issued by the Clerk, tho interestingly the on-line listing does not reflect that JD 1's lawyers even took out a summons for Fitz. In fact, I did not see a summons for Fitz on the Clerk's docket in any of the cases in which he is named. The case is set for an initial case management hearing on 9/21 before Judge Heneghan in Room 2202. At those hearings, the Plaintiff's lawyer will generally report on the status of service, an appearance by any served defendants, and the status of any responsive pleadings. I think that it's fair to say that no discovery will even begin prior to the initial case management conference, and if Defendants have been served and motions to dismiss are contemplated, that will generally delay the start of discovery, perhaps until those motions are resolved.
John Doe 2 v. same defendants + Phillips [23 L 7221] was filed on July 20. Again summons issued against all Defendants but Fitz on 8/11. Case management set for 9/27 in front of J. Cushing in room 2206 at the Daley Center -- a public hearing if anyone is interested.
John Doe 3 v. same Defendants [23 L7226] was also filed on July 20. Again summons issued against all Defendants but Fitz on 8/11, and case management before Judge Durkin (Rm. 2203) on 9/19.
John Doe 5 [23L7904] has its initial case mgt date on 10/11 before Judge Hannon (Room 2205)
Lloyd Yates v. Northwestern only was filed on 7/24 [23 L 7300}, and has a case mgt date of 9/26 before Judge Harris (Room 2207).
John Doe 4, naming only Northwestern [23 L 7396] was filed on July 26, and has a case mgt date of 9/27 before Judge Johnson (Room 2201).
Warren Long v. Northwestern only [23 L 7485] has a case mgt date of 9/26 before Judge Harris (Room 2207).
Ramon Diaz v. NU, Fitz and Phillips [23 L 7712] has a case mgt date of 10/5 before Judge Flanagan (Room 2210].
Tom Carnifax v. NU only was filed on 8/2 [23 L 7713] has a case mgt date of 10/5 (but my bad note taking doesn't show which Judge, so you'll have to look it up if you want to go watch the show).
I would say that it's possible that these cases could, at some point in the future, be consolidated before a single motion judge from the Law Division of the Circuit Court. My recollection is that the Judge assigned to the first filed case gets the original assignment, but each party has a right to a change of judge, so that can also result in some shifting if there is ultimately a consolidation motion filed.
Bottom line? Just because the Defendants have knowledge that they've been sued, until they get served they aren't required to do anything in response to the case. Lots of interesting issues out there that will be hashed out in the coming weeks and months (why no summons issued for Coach Fitz? do they think they can serve him thru Northwestern, his now former-employer? Will the named Defendants each be provided with their own lawyers [as in big, big $$$]? Will NU cave and write checks even if they have valid legal defenses to claims by many of these Plaintiffs? When will Webb/Sidley file for Fitz, or will that an all of these cases get settled due to NU's lack of appetite for the necessarily public litigation of these cases?). However, this is the Circuit Court of Cook County and nothing happens quickly.
