Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Kingery Durree x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Motor Vehicle | Illinois Central
Compel
MOTION to Compel Discovery Answers & Responses of Defendant Naomi Miller by Plaintiffs H L, Laurie Lewey. Responses due by 10/14/2026 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Certificate of Service)(Saracino, Christopher)
Personal Inj. Prod. Liability | Illinois Central
Order on Motion to Dismiss
TEXT ORDER: GRANTING Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Otis Elevator Company's 49 Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Third-Party Complaint against Third-Party Defendant OSF Healthcare System ("OSF") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is allowed at the Court's discretion and "on terms that the court considers proper." Here, OSF was plaintiff's employer and, therefore, could not be directly sued by plaintiff for the injuries sustained during the course of her employment. Otis' filed a third-party action against OSF which states that due to an issue with OSF's Cancer Care e-service system it did not have complete information regarding notice of potential issues associated with the elevator that was involved in this case under after it filed the Third-Party Complaint. (D. 49 , p. 1). Upon obtaining this information, Otis no longer wishes to pursue its third-party action against OSF. Id. Otis asks the Court to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint against OSF with prejudice and dismiss OSF's counterclaims against Otis for contribution and express indemnity because OSF will no longer be a third-party defendant in this case or on the jury verdict form. Id. at p. 2. In response, OSF asks that its counterclaims against Otis be dismissed without prejudice, to preserve OSF's ability to pursue those claims against Otis in state court, and to consider whether OSF should be awarded its taxable costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). Otis' 49 Motion is GRANTED and the Third-Party Complaint against OSF is DISMISSED with prejudice. OSF's 36 Counterclaim against Otis is also DISMISSED without prejudice. Finally, the Court declines to address OSF's request as to whether it should be awarded taxable costs under Rule 54(d) at this time as an impermissible advisory opinion. Entered by Judge Michael M. Mihm on 09/30/2026. (KLC)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.