IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION

 

JOHN BOHN,                                                                        )

                                                                                                )

                                                                Plaintiff,                 )

v.                                                                                             )               No.: 04 L 012295

                                                                                                )                              

TROY KELLY,                                                                      )               (A Refiling of Case No. 00 L-005959)

                                                                                                )

                                                                Defendant.            )

 

SECOND MOTION OF TROY KELLY TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO S.C.R. 219(c)

 

                NOW COMES the Defendant, TROY KELLY, by and through his attorney, LAW OFFICES OF LOWELL D. SNORF, III, and requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the case under S.C.R. 219(c).  In support of this motion, movant states as follows:

                1.             On April 25, 2005, Defendant presented his motion under S.C.R. 219(c), which the court denied (see Group Exhibit “A, pages 17-18” attached).  The court stated:

                                               

“I can truly appreciate your frustration, and having been on the entering end of some of those orders; and I know that in 2005, you have to be pretty egregious to get a barring order because judges usually have about eight orders before they are willing to bar.

 

The case that you cited about not changing the prior judges orders is really a case where the case was ready to go - - went to a trial judge.  A motion judge had entered an order, and the trial judge on that case changed the motion judge’s order.  And that would have been true if you had gone to trial in the law division after those barring orders on the first case; then the trial judge under that - - the case that you cited would - - should have gone along with the prior orders.  However, this is a new case, and I do take Smith v P.A.C.E. seriously.”

               

 “Counsel, I’m going to deny the motion, but the plaintiff will not be turning once.  Every cut-off date will be met by the plaintiff.  If there is any delay in this case, then I will take into consideration every prior order - - not barring, but I will take into consideration every prior order for diligence purposes.  That’s number one.”      

 

                2.             After April 25, 2005, there has been no activity due to Plaintiff’s attorney’s pending motion to withdraw.

                                               

                3.             On June 15, 2005, Defendant filed another motion to dismiss because Plaintiff again did not answer S.C.R. 214 production requests, and on June 15, 2005, the case was reset to July 11, 2005  (see Exhibit “B,” attached).

 

                4.             On August 15, 2005, the case was continued to September 20, 2005 to allow Plaintiff’s attorney to withdraw  (see Exhibit “C,” attached).

 

                5.             On September 20, 2005, the case was again continued to October 20, 2005 at Plaintiff’s request, because of “Plaintiff’s counsel’s potential request to withdraw”  (see Exhibit “D,” attached).

 

                6.             On October 20, 2005, the case again appeared at case management, but no withdrawal motion had been presented.  The case was reset to November 9, 2005 on “status on Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw”  (see Exhibit “E,” attached).

 

                7.             On November 9, 2005, no motion to withdraw had been filed, and the case was again reset to December 8, 2005 (see Exhibit “F,” attached).   

 

                8.             On December 8, 2005, Plaintiff’s attorney withdrew.  John Bohn was ordered either to obtain new counsel or file a pro se appearance by January 21, 2006  (see Exhibit “G,” attached). This did not occur.   

 

                9.             On January 21, 2006, the case again appeared at status.  Plaintiff had not filed a pro se appearance.  Plaintiff had not retained new counsel.  Plaintiff asked for and was given a final 21 days, or until February 10, 2006, to retain new counsel or file a pro se appearance  (see Exhibit “H,” attached). This has not occurred.

 

                10.           Unfortunately, Plaintiff continues to fail to comply with court orders, and Defendant asks for a dismissal pursuant to S.C.R. 219(c) and for attorney’s fees.   

 

                WHEREFORE, movant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an order dismissing this case.

 

 

 

 

 

LAW OFFICE LOWELL D. SNORF, III                                                                            Respectfully submitted,

77 West Washington Street, Suite 703

Chicago, IL  60602                                                                                               

Telephone: (312) 726-8961                                                                 

ATT #71148                                                                                                                          Lowell D. Snorf, III

                                                                                                                                                Attorney for Troy Kelly