printing Print

The site you are about to visit contain(s) information created and maintained by other public and private organizations. These links are provided for the user’s convenience.

The U.S. District Court of Northern District of Illinois does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information; nor does it control or guarantee the on-going availability, maintenance, or security of these internet sites.

Further, the inclusion of links is not intended to reflect their importance or to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered, on these outside sites, or the organizations sponsoring the sites.



Other Topic Areas

  • If a motion is to be presented and heard during a scheduled status hearing, then notice the motion for the status hearing time, not the 9:15 motion time.

  • No notices will be mailed out when a status hearing is held and a next status hearing date is set. Counsel must make their own notation of the new date.

  • In connection with any settled matter in which counsel desire to have this Court retain jurisdiction to enforce any future obligations under the settlement agreement, the parties stipulation for dismissal of the action with such retention of jurisdiction must not refer to dismissal "with prejudice" (see Lynch v. SamataMason Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2002) and Shapo v. Engel, 463 Fd.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2006)).

  • Central States Teamsters' Pension Fund and Health and Welfare Fund - Following the death of Judge James Moran, Judge Shadur has accepted oversight responsibility for the long-standing consent decrees involving these funds (Chao v. Estate of Frank Fitzsimmons, 78 C 342; Chao v. Robbins, 78 C 4075; Chao v. Dorfman, 82 C 7951).  This involvement is limited (1) to the receipt and review of quarterly reports by the appointed Independent Special Counsel, David Coar, Esq. and (2) in the event that any further amendments to the consent decrees may be required (the other active party is the United States Secretary of Labor), to the consideration and possible entry of any such amendments.  In Judge Moran's experience these limited areas of oversight did not call for his recusal in any ERISA cases brought by the Trustees of the two Funds.  Subject to any future developments that may call for a different analysis, Judge Shadur contemplates handling future ERISA cases in the same manner.  Accordingly this information is intended simply to serve as a disclosure of the relevant facts. 




Note: The court does not control nor can it guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this information. Neither is it intended to endorse any view expressed nor reflect its importance by inclusion in this site.
#CMPID455