Case Activity (1309)

1. Filed: June 01, 2026 | Entered: June 01, 2026 Herrera v. McGrath Elmhurst Imports, Inc.

   751 Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The pending motion for summary judgment 22 is stricken without prejudice. Discovery has not yet closed, and the Court set a short fact discovery close date of 7/7/26. The Court is truly perplexed why defendant believed this Court's 1/4/26 order allowed it to file a summary judgment motion prior to the close of discovery. The Court was clear that it would regroup with the parties once discovery has closed. Defendant's counsel is cautioned to follow this Court's rules and order carefully in the future. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/01/2026)

2. Filed: May 29, 2026 | Entered: May 29, 2026 Herrera v. McGrath Elmhurst Imports, Inc.

   751 Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act | Illinois Northern

   Minute

   MINUTE entry before the Honorable Heather K. McShain: Pending before the Court is defendant's motion to stay discovery pending resolution of defendant's motion for summary judgment 25 . Defendant argues that a stay is warranted because plaintiff's FMLA claims fail as a matter of law and no further discovery could affect what defendant describes as the inevitable grant of summary judgment in its favor. In the exercise of its extremely broad discretion to manage discovery, see Chicago Reg'l Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Celtic Floor Covering, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 3d 1044, 1046 (N.D. Ill. 2018), the Court denies defendant's motion. Although courts may stay discovery on a showing of good cause, see Besnier v. MB Global Logistics, Inc., No. 25-cv-7932, 2026 WL 1346546, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2026), defendant has not made that showing here. First, the District Judge previously rejected defendant's request to file an early motion for summary judgment, see 10 2, determining that plaintiff was entitled to "at least some discovery" before defendant could move for summary judgment and allowing the parties until 07/07/2026 to complete fact discovery. 13 . While Judge Harjani's order did not expressly preclude defendant from moving for summary judgment before the close of fact discovery, the undersigned concludes that defendant's assertion that it has a strong likelihood of prevailing at summary judgment does not constitute good cause for preventing plaintiff from taking any further discovery. Second, the parties' most recent joint status report reflected that plaintiff was in the process of serving third-party subpoenas and the parties were continuing "to work to resolve issues related to the scope and completeness of Defendant's responses and document production." 20 1-2. Given the ongoing discovery process, the Court finds that halting discovery now and denying plaintiff the opportunity to develop evidence within the discovery period established by the District Judge could prejudice and tactically disadvantage plaintiff by depriving him of evidence that may support his claims and aid his response to the defense's motion for summary judgment. For these reasons, the motion to stay 25 is denied. Finally, the undersigned notes that the motion for summary judgment was erroneously presented to Judge McShain but will be addressed by the District Judge. (pk, ) (Entered: 05/29/2026)

3. 1307 additional result(s)