Doyle v. City of Chicago
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HARRY D. LEINENWEBER, District Judge.
Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 52). For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion is denied, and Plaintiffs Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant City of Chicago (the “City”) employed Plaintiff police officers as Security Specialists in Unit 542. Security Specialists are assigned to provide security to the Mayor of Chicago and other dignitaries in the City. The City employed at least…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Gunville v. WalkerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009
- Cheryl A. Gile v. United Airlines, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Delapaz v. RichardsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2011
- Hermes v. HeinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1984
- James Clark v. The City of BraidwoodCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2003
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Arms v. Milwaukee CountyDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2020
- Lawrence v. Thornton TownshipDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2025
- Lin v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2023
- Little v. JB Pritzker for GovernorDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2020
- Prince v. KatoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2020