Opinion
No. 01 C 8892
May 3, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs allege that Hunter's home and office were illegally searched on August 10, 1999, during which he was the victim of an assault and battery. He also alleges that he was falsely arrested and imprisoned at the time. The misconduct resulted in negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress and an invasion of privacy. The complaint was filed November 16, 2001.
The complaint, but not the caption, states that Andre Hunter and his corporation, Dependable Health Service Corporation, are plaintiffs. Count I appears to allege claims by both. The other counts appear to allege claims only by Hunter. If the corporation Is a party it must be represented by counsel. It cannot appear pro se.
Defendants move to dismiss because the case was filed more than two years after the alleged events and for other reasons. Plaintiff Hunter (but not the corporation) responded with a 50-page brief, together with exhibits of about the same volume. Defendants now move to strike the response, pointing out, correctly, that it violates Local Rule 7.1, which places a 15-page limitation on briefs unless the court has allowed more.
But we choose not to strike it, as defendants do not need to reply. The response describes a whole litany of woes arising after August 10, 1999. None of those, however, is alleged in the complaint, which focuses solely on the events of August 10, 1999, and the immediate aftermath, all more than two years before filing of the complaint The motion to dismiss, based on the two-year statute of limitations, is granted. If plaintiff or plaintiffs have timely claims he or they wish to litigate, the route to take is another lawsuit, with pleadings, we might add, that conform to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and our local roles. But this lawsuit is untimely.