Vega v. Bd. of Educ.

Full title: ROUSEMARY VEGA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al…

Court: United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Date published: Oct 9, 2024

15 cv 3221 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2024)

Opinion

15 cv 3221

10-09-2024

ROUSEMARY VEGA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al, Defendants.

Elaine Bucklo, Judge

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO REMAND

Elaine Bucklo, Judge

In connection with a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals, Defendant Chicago Board of Education requests entry of a judgment to reflect that appellate ruling. In support of this Motion, the Board states as follows:

1. On December 28, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting (in part) a sanctions motion, ordering that “Plaintiffs' counsel shall reimburse Defendants $11,920.95 in attorney fees and costs.” See ECF 315.

2. An appeal followed. See ECF 317 (the notice of appeal).

3. That appeal has now concluded, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the December 28^th Order in part and vacated it in part. More specifically, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment that provided (ECF 330):

“We AFFIRM the district court's sanctions and fee award against Caryn Shaw but VACATE those decisions as to Anne Shaw and Donald Villar. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The above is in accordance with the decision of this court entered on July 29, 2024. Each side to bear their own costs.”

See also ECF 331 (certified copy of opinion in connection with the Court of Appeals Judgment).

4. Upon remand, this case was reassigned here. See ECF 328 (mandate) and ECF 332 (reassignment order).

5. The Board requests entry of a revised judgment -- in the amount of $11,920.95 and against only Caryn Shaw -- to implement the directive from the Court of Appeals. Upon entry of that revised judgment, the Board would be able to begin collection proceedings to recover that amount from Caryn Shaw, if collection proceedings become necessary.

6. On October 7^th, Counsel for the Board (Thomas Doyle) contacted Respondents Counsel (Anne Shaw and Caryn Shaw) by email to ask if they agreed to (or opposed) this Motion, but neither of them responded to that email. On October 8^th, Mr. Doyle followed up by telephone, and he left a voicemail to Respondents Counsel (at their firm's voicemail system), to ask the same question. No one responded to that voicemail message. In these circumstances, it seems that Respondents do not agree to this Motion.

WHEREFORE, the Board requests entry of a judgment in the amount of $11,920.95 against Caryn Shaw.