The Millard Group Inc. v. Stutesman

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION The Millard Group Inc., and ) Millard Metal Maintenance Co., LLC, ) dba The Millard Group, LLC of Illinois, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 1:17-cv-08520 ) v. ) Hon. Robert W. Gettleman ) James B. Stutesman, Tom Frye, and ) Harvard Maintenance, Inc., ) ) Defendants. ) MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TOM FRYE AND HARVARD MAINTENANCE, INC. REQUESTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN THEIR FAVOR PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 58 Defendants Tom Frye and Harvard Maintenance, Inc. respectfully move the Court to enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. In support of this motion Defendants Frye and Harvard state as follows: 1. On July 10, 2019, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Frye’s motion for summary judgment on all Plaintiffs’ claims against him, granting Harvard’s motion for summary judgment on all Plaintiffs’ claims against it, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against Frye, and denying Plaintiffs leave to add an Illinois Trade Secrets Act claim. (ECF No. 132). The Memorandum Opinion and Order effectively dismissed all Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Frye and Harvard. 2. On July 15, 2019, Defendant Frye voluntarily dismissed his counterclaim against Plaintiffs. (ECF Nos. 133 and 134). Since that point no claims have remained between Plaintiffs and Defendants Frye and Harvard. 3. On September 27, 2019, this Court entered a Minute Order stating as follows: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman: Status hearing held on 9/26/2019. Pursuant to the parties' statements on the record this case is dismiss[ed] without prejudice with leave to reinstate by 11/26/2019. In the event a motion to reinstate is not filed on or before 11/26/2019, the case shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice without further order of the Court. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (cn). (ECF No. 138). This Minute Entry addressed the resolution of the final remaining claim in this case, Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim against Defendant Stutesman. This Minute Order did not relate to or have any effect on the granting of the motions for summary judgment of Defendants Frye and Harvard dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against them. 4. Defendants Frye and Harvard prevailed on the merits of the claims Plaintiffs brought against them by virtue of this Court granting of their motions for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. However, the Court has not yet entered a judgment in favor of Defendants Frye and Harvard and against Plaintiffs. 5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) provides that “Every judgment and amended judgment must be set out in a separate document,” except for certain listed exceptions that do not apply here. 6. Specifically, “[t]he grant of a motion for summary judgment is not one of the exceptions to the separate document requirement listed in Rule 58(a), so a separate document [is] required in this case to have a proper Rule 58 judgment.” Perry v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local No. 73 Pension Fund, 585 F.3d 358, 361 (7th Cir. 2009). 7. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d) provides that “A party may request that judgment be set out in a separate document as required by Rule 58(a).” See also Perry, 585 F.3d at 362 (“if the court has not [yet] entered a proper Rule 58 judgment on a separate document, the parties should ask the court to do so”). 8. Now that Plaintiffs’ final remaining claim against Defendant Stutesman has been resolved, there is no reason or basis to further delay entry of a final judgment in favor of Defendants Frye and Harvard and against Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Defendants Frye and Harvard respectfully request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(d) that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants Frye and Harvard and against Plaintiffs, and that the judgment be set out in a separate document as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) Dated: October 14, 2019 Respectfully submitted, a oe Peter A. Steinmeyer Brian E. Spang EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. 227 W. Monroe St., Suite 3250 Chicago, Illinois 60606 P: 312-499-1400 F: 312-827-9562 E: bspang @ebglaw.com Counsel for Defendants Harvard Maintenance and Tom Frye

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 14th day of October, 2019, the foregoing document was filed and served electronically via the Court’s CM/ECE system upon all counsel of record in this action.

Brian E. Spang