You are here
Judge Timothy A. Barnes - Opinions
Description | Date Issued |
---|---|
The Illinois Department of Employment Security v. Davis (In re Antoinette D. Davis) 23bk07879, 23ap00285 |
04/04/2025 |
Cordova, et al. v. City of Chicago (In re Emelida Cordova) 19bk06255, 19ap00684 As to the motion to exclude, the plaintiffs’ expert and his testimony meet the required standards under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703 and the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Daubert. The expert and his testimony have the requisite qualifications and experience, reliability and relevance. The expert’s proposed use is as to his specialized knowledge and experience and will assist the court as the trier of fact. As to the motion for certification, the plaintiffs have demonstrated that they meet the requirements for representative parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), in that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The court further finds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) that prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class or adjudications with respect to individual class members that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the individual adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. The court further finds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. As a result, the motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ expert and his testimony will be DENIED and the motion to certify the class will be GRANTED, each as set forth herein, subject to a further order of the court setting forth the specific requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c). |
03/10/2025 |
Chop Foo, LLC v. Justin S. Fara (In re Justin S. Fara) 21bk05434, 21ap00117 |
09/30/2024 |
In re Marshall Spiegel 20bk21625 |
09/05/2024 |
In re Rosebud Farm, Inc. 18bk24763 |
04/30/2024 |
Michael K. Desmond, not individually, but as Chapter 7 Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of Lee C. Keebler, v. Lee C. Keebler and Pamela Keebler (In re Lee C. Keebler) 21bk03589, 22ap00001 |
03/29/2024 |
Chicago & Vicinity Laborers’ District Council Pension Plan, Chicago & Vicinity District Council Laborers’ Welfare Plan, Chicago & Vicinity District Council Retiree Welfare Plan and Catherine Wenskus, not individually but as Administrator of the Funds... 23bk03279, 23ap00127 |
02/08/2024 |
In re Geraldine D. Evans 22bk06249 For these reasons, the motion is DENIED. |
02/02/2024 |
In re Marshall Spiegel 20bk21625 |
01/26/2024 |
In re James Hicks, Jr. 14bk36072 |
08/31/2023 |
Andrew J. Maxwell, trustee for the estate of Horizon Group Management, LLC, v. Daniel Michael, et al. (In re Horizon Group Management, LLC) 14bk41230, 16ap00394 |
07/18/2023 |
In re Edward Johnson 22bk04449 |
05/12/2023 |
Donald A. Stukes, Liquidating Trustee v. John Argoudelis (In re NCW Properties, LLC) 20ap00246, 18bk20215 |
03/24/2023 |
Collum v. City of Chicago, Illinois (In re John C. Collum) 22ap00178, 16bk36530 |
03/22/2023 |
In re Ace Track Co., Ltd., Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding 15bk13819 |
01/27/2023 |
In re Jewel Carter 17bk03367 |
03/30/2022 |
In re Marshall Spiegel 20bk21625 |
03/11/2022 |
In re Bruce K. Propst 15bk12654 |
03/04/2022 |
Cordova v. City of Chicago (In re Emelida Cordova) 19bk06255, 19ap00684 As to the sufficiency of the counts pled, the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged violation of sections 362(a)(4), (6) and 542(a), but have failed to do so with respect to section 362(a)(7). As a result, the plaintiffs’ claim under section 362(a)(7) will be dismissed as insufficiently pled but without prejudice and with leave to amend, while claims under sections 362(a)(4), (6) and 542(a) survive the motion. The motion to dismiss also raises the propriety of imposing punitive damages against a municipality. In this regard, the motion is well taken and the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages is dismissed. Section 106(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code governs, and the abrogation of sovereign immunity contained therein expressly omits immunity from punitive damages. The motion to dismiss will be granted in this respect. Finally, the defendant seeks to dismiss the plaintiffs’ request for class certification. Class certification is a matter of consideration in a separate motion and not properly the subject of a motion to dismiss. The defendant’s motion to dismiss is thus denied in this respect. The court will set a separate deadline for a motion to certify the class and any opposition thereto. The defendant’s motion to dismiss is, therefore, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. |
12/06/2021 |
Herzog v. Ferguson (In re Eric Ferguson) 20bk17679, 20ap00426 |
10/29/2021 |