Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Serafin v. Ic System Inc

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

March 2, 2018

Zygmunt Serafin
v.
IC System, Inc.

          John Blythin - Attorney for the plaintiff.

          Ben Slatsky - Attorney for the plaintiff .

          Elizabeth Odian - Attorney for the defendant.

          COURT MINUTES AND ORDER

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.

         The court apologized to the parties for the fact that it had delayed in ruling on several motions, which had caused the case to become somewhat knotted and which had slowed its progress. The court indicated that it had scheduled today's hearing to try to get the case back on track.

         The court walked through the fact that in the original complaint, the plaintiff had defined the putative class in one way. When the plaintiff filed the amended motion to certify the class, however, that motion had defined the class differently than had the complaint. The declaration in support of that motion had referenced Interrogatory #17, which defined the class yet a third way. Finally, the plaintiff had filed a motion to amend the motion to certify the class. Meanwhile, both parties had filed summary judgment motions, and the parties had filed several motions to restrict documents from public view. After going through the procedural history in detail, the court asked counsel for the plaintiff whether the plaintiff's most recent proposed amended complaint-Dkt. No. 59-1-contained the definition of the class that the plaintiff wished to pursue. Counsel for the complaint confirmed that it did.

         The parties then discussed the court's proposal to (a) grant the plaintiff's December 2, 2016 motion to amend the complaint (Dkt. No. 59); (b) allow the plaintiff to file a second amended motion to certify the class; (c) allow the parties to fully brief that motion; then (d) either allow the parties to supplement their summary judgment motions or rule on the motions as filed. Counsel for the plaintiff had no objection to this plan. Counsel for the defense urged the court to rule on the summary judgment motions now, arguing that they were not dependent on the outcome of the class certification motion. Counsel for the plaintiff responded that if the court were to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on any issues prior to class certification, the class members could be excluded from the benefits of such a ruling. The court stated that it would implement its proposed plan, and would rule on class certification prior to considering the summary judgment arguments.

         Finally, the court ruled on the various motions to restrict documents from public view.

         The court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiff's amended motion for class certification. Dkt. No. 17.

         The court DENIES AS MOOT the portion of the plaintiff's September 13, 2016 motion that asks the court to stay briefing on summary judgment. Dkt. No. 39. The remainder of that motion remains pending.

         The court GRANTS the plaintiff's Rule 7(h) expedited, non-dispositive motion to seal references to material designated by defendant as “confidential.” Dkt. No. 46.

         The court GRANTS the plaintiff's Rule 7(h) expedited, non-dispositive motion to seal references to material designated by defendant as “confidential.” Dkt. No. 51.

         The court GRANTS the defendant's Rule 7(h) expedited, non-dispositive motion to seal references to material designated by defendant as “confidential.” Dkt. No. 56.

         The court GRANTS the plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 59. The court ORDERS that the clerk's office shall docket the document at Dkt. No. 59-1 (the redacted version of the amended complaint), and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.