Central States Health & Welfare Fund et al v. Contreras et al (2024)

#67

(#67) New Case Notes: A filing fee is not due for this case. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Toliver (see Special Order 3). Case received over counter or electronically. No prior sanctions found. (For court use only - links to the #national and #circuit indexes.) Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Toliver). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt) (Entered: 05/15/2024)

66 #1

*Restricted*

#66

(#66) Case electronically transferred in from District of Illinois Northern; Case Number 1:23-cv-01301. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas should seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. Copy of NEF to be sent US Mail to parties not electronically noticed. (Entered: 05/15/2024)

#65

(#65) TRANSFERRED to the USDC Northern District of Texas the electronic record (axk, ) Modified on 5/14/2024 (axk, ). [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 05/14/2024)

#64

(#64) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: This matter was filed in this District based on an Interpleader-ERISA action brought by Plaintiff Central States. Subsequently, Central States deposited the proceeds with the Clerk of Court and was dismissed. #44 . Claimants (Sanford, Contreras, and Hernandez) to the proceeds have filed cross-claims and proceeded with discovery, which is now complete. #55 . Having considered the record, the Court sua sponte transfers this case to the Northern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); In re Ryze Claims Sol., LLC, 968 F.3d 701, 706 n.5 (7th Cir. 2020) ("It is well established that a district court has the authority to sua sponte transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. 1404."). The Court finds that the Northern District of Texas is the more appropriate venue for resolution of this case, as all Claimants and prospective witnesses are residents of and domiciled in Texas, and the central issue in this matter concerns whether Claimant Sanford and the decedent Nelson Contreras were common law husband and wife under Texas law. Cross-claimants Contreras and Hernandez deny the alleged common law marital status. Given the location of the parties and prospective witnesses, and the underlying issues in this case, the Court further finds that transferring this case to the Northern District of Texas "will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and is in the interest of justice." Nicks v. Koch Meat Co., 260 F. Supp. 3d 942, 954 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (citing Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 21920 (7th Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, the Clerk shall transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas. All future filings should be made in the new case number assigned by the Northern District of Texas. Mailed notice (mjc, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 04/25/2024)

#63

(#63) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 3/28/24, Defendant Sanford, without leave from this Court, filed an answer, counterclaim, and jury demand #57 , despite having filed with the benefit of counsel an answer and counterclaim, which did not include a jury demand, in this matter on 4/17/23. See #19 , #20 , and #22 . Defendants Contreas and Hernandez moved to strike Defendant Sanford's newly filed answer, counterclaim, and jury demand #59 . Under FRCP 15, a pleading may be amended once, as a matter of course, within 21 days after the pleading is served. After that period, a party may only amend their pleadings with leave of court or with the opposing party's consent. FRCP 15(a)(1)-(2). Here, Defendant Sanford is outside of the 21-day window, and neither the Court nor the opposing parties consented to the newly filed answer. Furthermore, regarding Defendant Sanford's newly filed jury demand, under FRCP 38(b), a jury demand must be filed no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served. FRCP 38(b)(1). The failure of a party to serve and file a jury demand results in a waiver. FRCP 38(d). However, upon motion, the Court has the discretion to grant an untimely request for a jury trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b). Synet, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 1998 WL 102707, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 1998). Here, again, Defendant Sandford is outside of the 14-day window, and she has not filed a motion explaining why the Court should consider a late jury demand. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Sandford's newly filed answer, counterclaim, and jury demand #57 are stricken. Mailed notice (mjc, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 04/25/2024)

#59

(#59) MOTION by Defendants Mercedes Contreras, Norma Hernandez, Cross Claimants Mercedes Contreras, Norma Hernandez, Cross Defendants Mercedes Contreras, Norma Hernandez to strike answer to complaint, crossclaim #57 , pro se appearance #58 and jury demand (Deutschman, Jeffrey) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 03/29/2024)

#57

(#59) MOTION by Defendants Mercedes Contreras, Norma Hernandez, Cross Claimants Mercedes Contreras, Norma Hernandez, Cross Defendants Mercedes Contreras, Norma Hernandez to strike answer to complaint, crossclaim #57 , pro se appearance #58 and jury demand (Deutschman, Jeffrey) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 03/29/2024)

#55

(#64) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: This matter was filed in this District based on an Interpleader-ERISA action brought by Plaintiff Central States. Subsequently, Central States deposited the proceeds with the Clerk of Court and was dismissed. #44 . Claimants (Sanford, Contreras, and Hernandez) to the proceeds have filed cross-claims and proceeded with discovery, which is now complete. #55 . Having considered the record, the Court sua sponte transfers this case to the Northern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); In re Ryze Claims Sol., LLC, 968 F.3d 701, 706 n.5 (7th Cir. 2020) ("It is well established that a district court has the authority to sua sponte transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. 1404."). The Court finds that the Northern District of Texas is the more appropriate venue for resolution of this case, as all Claimants and prospective witnesses are residents of and domiciled in Texas, and the central issue in this matter concerns whether Claimant Sanford and the decedent Nelson Contreras were common law husband and wife under Texas law. Cross-claimants Contreras and Hernandez deny the alleged common law marital status. Given the location of the parties and prospective witnesses, and the underlying issues in this case, the Court further finds that transferring this case to the Northern District of Texas "will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and is in the interest of justice." Nicks v. Koch Meat Co., 260 F. Supp. 3d 942, 954 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (citing Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 21920 (7th Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, the Clerk shall transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas. All future filings should be made in the new case number assigned by the Northern District of Texas. Mailed notice (mjc, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 04/25/2024)

#44

(#64) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: This matter was filed in this District based on an Interpleader-ERISA action brought by Plaintiff Central States. Subsequently, Central States deposited the proceeds with the Clerk of Court and was dismissed. #44 . Claimants (Sanford, Contreras, and Hernandez) to the proceeds have filed cross-claims and proceeded with discovery, which is now complete. #55 . Having considered the record, the Court sua sponte transfers this case to the Northern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); In re Ryze Claims Sol., LLC, 968 F.3d 701, 706 n.5 (7th Cir. 2020) ("It is well established that a district court has the authority to sua sponte transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. 1404."). The Court finds that the Northern District of Texas is the more appropriate venue for resolution of this case, as all Claimants and prospective witnesses are residents of and domiciled in Texas, and the central issue in this matter concerns whether Claimant Sanford and the decedent Nelson Contreras were common law husband and wife under Texas law. Cross-claimants Contreras and Hernandez deny the alleged common law marital status. Given the location of the parties and prospective witnesses, and the underlying issues in this case, the Court further finds that transferring this case to the Northern District of Texas "will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and is in the interest of justice." Nicks v. Koch Meat Co., 260 F. Supp. 3d 942, 954 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (citing Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 21920 (7th Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, the Clerk shall transfer this case to the Northern District of Texas. All future filings should be made in the new case number assigned by the Northern District of Texas. Mailed notice (mjc, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 04/25/2024)

#19

(#63) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 3/28/24, Defendant Sanford, without leave from this Court, filed an answer, counterclaim, and jury demand #57 , despite having filed with the benefit of counsel an answer and counterclaim, which did not include a jury demand, in this matter on 4/17/23. See #19 , #20 , and #22 . Defendants Contreas and Hernandez moved to strike Defendant Sanford's newly filed answer, counterclaim, and jury demand #59 . Under FRCP 15, a pleading may be amended once, as a matter of course, within 21 days after the pleading is served. After that period, a party may only amend their pleadings with leave of court or with the opposing party's consent. FRCP 15(a)(1)-(2). Here, Defendant Sanford is outside of the 21-day window, and neither the Court nor the opposing parties consented to the newly filed answer. Furthermore, regarding Defendant Sanford's newly filed jury demand, under FRCP 38(b), a jury demand must be filed no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served. FRCP 38(b)(1). The failure of a party to serve and file a jury demand results in a waiver. FRCP 38(d). However, upon motion, the Court has the discretion to grant an untimely request for a jury trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b). Synet, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 1998 WL 102707, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 1998). Here, again, Defendant Sandford is outside of the 14-day window, and she has not filed a motion explaining why the Court should consider a late jury demand. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Sandford's newly filed answer, counterclaim, and jury demand #57 are stricken. Mailed notice (mjc, ) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 04/25/2024)

#7

(#7) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Central States Health & Welfare Fund, Charles A Whobrey as to Mercedes Contreras on 3/10/2023, answer due 3/31/2023. (Carey, Francis) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 03/16/2023)

#6

(#6) MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On or before 05/16/2023 the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the Joint Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Valderrama's name and then again on the link entitled 'Joint Initial Status Report. Plaintiff must serve this Minute Entry on all other parties. If the defendant(s) has not been served with process by that date, plaintiff's counsel is instructed to file an individual status report indicating the status of service of process by the same deadline. The parties are further ordered to review all of Judge Valderrama's standing orders and the information available on his webpage. Any nongovernmental corporate party that qualifies under the Rules is reminded of the requirement to file a disclosure statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1/N.D. Ill. Local Rule 3.2. Emailed notice (axc). [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 03/10/2023)

#5

(#5) ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Central States Health & Welfare Fund by Timothy Craig Reuter (Reuter, Timothy) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 03/03/2023)

#4

(#4) NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Central States Health & Welfare Fund, Charles A Whobrey (Carey, Francis) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 03/02/2023)

#3

(#3) COMPLAINT for Interpleader; Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20400575. filed by Charles A Whobrey; (Carey, Francis) Modified on 3/2/2023 (kl, ). [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 03/02/2023)

#2

(#2) CIVIL Cover Sheet (Carey, Francis) [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 03/02/2023)

#1

(#1) ATTORNEY Appearance form by Francis J. Carey. (Carey, Francis) Modified on 3/2/2023 (jn, ). [Transferred from Illinois Northern on 5/15/2024.] (Entered: 03/02/2023)