Stevo v. Frasor
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22975
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Stevo sued Blue Island, its mayor, and aldermen in 2007, alleging due process violations and a fourteenth-amendment equal protection class-of-one claim.
- Blue Island required outside water meters; notices were sent in 2003 and 2005; Stevo refused a certified letter and water was shut off for about seven weeks before installation.
- Meter installation occurred June 2005; water service was restored two days after installation.
- Discovery spanned over 15 months with seven extensions; the case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Keys under written consent, then reassigned to Magistrate Judge Finnegan.
- During briefing on the summary judgment motion, Stevo’s counsel opposed on Local Rule 56.1 grounds but the district court and magistrate judge proceeded with briefing and ruling.
- The Seventh Circuit concluded consent to proceed before Judge Finnegan was effective, allowing final judgment by the magistrate judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there valid consent to proceed before the magistrate judge? | Stevo argued consent was limited to Keys and did not extend to Finnegan. | Defendants argued consent by conduct and Roell implied consent to the reassignment. | Yes; implied consent existed and final judgment by Finnegan was proper. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by limiting discovery extensions? | Stevo contends more discovery was needed due to new counsel and altered theories. | Defendants maintain the seven extensions were excessive but not prejudicial and discovery should end. | No abuse; district court properly ended discovery after adequate opportunity to investigate. |
| Did the district court abuse the Local Rule 56.1 requirements in ruling on summary judgment? | Stevo argues the district court erred by not strictly enforcing Local Rule 56.1. | Defendants contend the district court properly exercised discretion in applying or overlooking technical rule violations. | No abuse; district court's flexible application of Local Rule 56.1 was permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S. 580 (U.S. 2003) (implied consent when right to refuse is acknowledged and litigants appear)
- Kalan v. City of St. Francis, 274 F.3d 1150 (7th Cir. 2001) (consent must be on the record and unambiguous; consent to one magistrate does not automatically extend to another)
- Mark I, Inc. v. Gruber, 38 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 1994) (consent to magistrate judge is required due to Article III concerns)
- Searls v. Glasser, 64 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 1995) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc., 368 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2004) (district courts may overlook technical failures in summary judgment filings)
- Harmon v. OKI Systems, 115 F.3d 477 (7th Cir. 1997) (flexible enforcement of local rules to promote merits processing)
- Little v. Cox's Supermarkets, 71 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 1995) (district courts' interpretations of their rules deserve considerable deference)