Case: Marie O. v. Edgar

1:94-cv-01471 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: March 10, 1994

Closed Date: 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 10, 1994, four infants with disabilities, represented by Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, filed this lawsuit against the State of Illinois in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class of approximately 26,000 other children in Illinois who were eligible for, but not receiving, early intervention services.Part H of IDEA sets up a federal program which federal funds are granted to states for the development and implementation of systems…

On March 10, 1994, four infants with disabilities, represented by Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, filed this lawsuit against the State of Illinois in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a class of approximately 26,000 other children in Illinois who were eligible for, but not receiving, early intervention services.

Part H of IDEA sets up a federal program which federal funds are granted to states for the development and implementation of systems to provide early intervention services to developmentally-delayed infants and toddlers from birth through age two. According to the complaint, since 1987 to 1994, Illinois had received more than $24 million in federal funds to provide early intervention services. But in this case, the state failed to provide any therapy for a 4 1/2-month-old child who had Down's syndrome. Most of the young children with cerebral palsy, prenatal brain injury, stroke, deafness, Down's syndrome and other disabilities in Illinois did not receive therapy, education, family counseling or social work. A report by the Illinois auditor general estimated that in 1992 only one-fourth of the eligible infants and toddlers, about 9,000 of some 35,000 children, were receiving the required educational and therapeutic services.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The declaratory relief they requested was for the court to declare that Illinois' failure to provide all eligible infants with early intervention services under Part H was a violation of their rights under Part H. For injunctive relief, they requested for Illinois to provide early intervention services to all eligible children and to comply with the mandatory aspects of Part H.

On May 2, 1994, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment barred the lawsuit. On June 13, 1994, however, the court (Judge Charles Kocoras) denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The court stated that this action was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment because it fell under the Ex parte Young exception. The court held that, because plaintiffs were seeking prospective injunctive relief, the fact that Illinois possibly would have to spend considerable funds to comply with Part H did not remove the action from the strictures of the Ex parte Young doctrine.

On September 25, 1995, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 21, 1995, the defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On February 1, 1996, the court issued an opinion on the cross-motions, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's. The court held that under the IDEA, all infants and toddlers with disabilities or developmental delays had a right to receive critical early intervention services from their states. This was a first case interpreting a provision of Part H of the IDEA. The court stated that Illinois must provide all eligible children early intervention services, including developmental evaluations and 16 specific therapies and services such as physical, occupational, and speech therapies. 1996 WL 48515.

Over the next few months, the court held hearings to determine how the state would provide early intervention services. On September 19, 1996, the court entered final judgment. The court's judgment concluded that Part H requires that, “after five years, a state ‘shall’ have in effect ‘at a minimum’ certain programs serving ‘all’ eligible children.” The court therefore granted plaintiffs the requested declaratory relief, stating that (1) Illinois was required to have in place a statewide system of programs providing early intervention services to all eligible infants, and (2) Illinois was required to provide the services mandated under Part H. The court also granted detailed injunctive relief designed to require the defendants to bring Illinois into “meaningful compliance” with Part H.

On October 2, 1996, the court appointed an expert to monitor the State of Illinois' compliance with the provisions of the court's order and to report on those matters to the court at appropriate intervals.

On October 17, 1996, the defendants appealed the district court's decision to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On December 30, 1997, the Seventh Circuit (Judges Cudahy, Ripple, and Kanne) affirmed the district court's decision. 131 F.3d 610.

On June 8, 1998, a motion for approval of proposed settlement of attorneys' fees was filed by the plaintiff. On June 11, 1998, the court granted the settlement proposal for the attorneys' fees. The defendants paid fees to the plaintiffs (details are unknown).

Over the next few years, enforcement of the court's judgment continued. On February 3, 2000, however, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce final order and judgment of September 16, 1996, arguing that the State was violating the court's order by not complying with the mandates of Part C of the IDEA with respect to specialized services. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the State failed to comply with the Part C requirements by allegedly maintaining a policy of denying "specialized services" to infants and toddlers enrolled in Part C services.

On March 15, 2000, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to enforce final order and judgment and terminated the court's supervision in this matter. The court stated it issued its order in 1996 because the State did not have a system that was adequately meeting the goals of Part C of the IDEA. Since then, the State had substantially complied with the requirements of Part C, so the court found no reason to force the state into providing an optimum level of benefits.

At the end of 2000, the State indicated that it intended in the near future to include in the early intervention system a "quality enhancement" review process. The plaintiffs claimed, however, that the quality enhancement process was deficient because it gave authority to reviewers who did not participate in the planning and forming of the child's individualized family service plan (IFSP) to override the service plan developed by the IFSP team. The plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief to stop this process, but the court denied the motion on January 26, 2001. The quality enhancement review process thus went into effect June 1, 2001.

Meanwhile, the State requested approval for the QE review from the Office of Special Educational Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education. On September 6, 2001, however, OSEP sent a letter to the State indicating that the quality enhancement process did not comply with Part C of the IDEA. The plaintiffs thus moved the court to require the State to produce the names of all individuals in the program so that the plaintiffs could notify them that they were entitled to reevaluation of their services under the IDEA. On December 5, 2002, the court denied this motion, concluding that allowing disclosure of the names would be improper.

On November 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. This motion was denied by the court on January 12, 2005. The court stated that although the plaintiffs are prevailing parties for matters up until May 2001, it would be too tenuous to award three years' worth of attorneys' fees for the monitoring and judicial oversight of defendant's compliance.

There are no further updates. There is no reason to believe the case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Ginny Lee (4/3/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5083677/parties/o-v-edgar/


Judge(s)

Cudahy, Richard Dickson (Illinois)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Kocoras, Charles Petros (Illinois)

Ripple, Kenneth Francis (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Berman, Karen Margot (Illinois)

Fain, Lisa Zachary (Illinois)

Fenton, Richard Lee (Illinois)

Lehrer, Robert E. (Illinois)

Redleaf, Diane L. (Illinois)

Rosen, Jennifer Naomi (Illinois)

Judge(s)

Cudahy, Richard Dickson (Illinois)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Kocoras, Charles Petros (Illinois)

Ripple, Kenneth Francis (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Berman, Karen Margot (Illinois)

Fain, Lisa Zachary (Illinois)

Fenton, Richard Lee (Illinois)

Lehrer, Robert E. (Illinois)

Redleaf, Diane L. (Illinois)

Rosen, Jennifer Naomi (Illinois)

Scheidt, Donna L. (Michigan)

Segal, Tracy Tatnall (Florida)

Solis, Tina B. (Illinois)

Thompson, Jill Anne (Illinois)

Vanderwicken, Sarah (Illinois)

Wilson, Kelly C. (Wisconsin)

Woltjen, Maria (Illinois)

Zimmerman, Amy Lauren (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Ioppolo, Thomas A. (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

O v. Edgar

Jan. 12, 2005 Docket
14

Memorandum Opinion

O. v. Edgar

1994 WL 262193

June 13, 1994 Order/Opinion
26

Memorandum Opinion

O. v. Edgar

157 F.R.D. 433

Aug. 25, 1994 Order/Opinion
58

Memorandum Opinion

1996 WL 48515

Feb. 2, 1996 Order/Opinion
64

Opinion

O. v. Edgar

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

131 F.3d 610

Dec. 2, 1997 Order/Opinion
153

Minute Order

March 15, 2000 Order/Opinion
190

Minute Order

Dec. 4, 2002 Order/Opinion
197

Minute Order

Jan. 12, 2005 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5083677/o-v-edgar/

Last updated May 12, 2022

ECF Number Description Date Link
153

MINUTE ORDER of 3/15/00 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : The court denies Plaintiffs' motion to enforce final order and judgment of 9/19/96 and hereby terminates the court's supervision in this matter. [136-1] All other pending motions for leav e to supplement their response to defendants' status report on newly received information [152-1] to strike plaintiffs' expert affidavit [147-1] and for further relief [143-1] are moot. Status hearing and ruling set for 3/22/00 are stricken. Entered Memorandum Opinion. Mailed notice. (las)

March 15, 2000 RECAP

RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 03/10/94 in the amount of $120.00, receipt #432030. (srb) (Entered: 03/11/1994)

March 10, 1994
2

RETURN OF SERVICE of summons executed upon defendant Jim Edgar on 3/10/94 (eav) (Entered: 03/15/1994)

March 14, 1994
190

MINUTE ORDER of 12/4/02 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras: We deny plaintiffs' motion for order permitting attorney-client communication [179-1] is denied. Entered Memorandum Opinion Mailed notice (yap)

Dec. 4, 2002 RECAP
3

RETURN OF SERVICE of summons executed upon defendant Mary J Broncato on 3/10/94 (eav) (Entered: 03/15/1994)

March 14, 1994
4

MINUTE ORDER of 3/18/94 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing set for 20 Apr 94 at 9:30 a.m. At the initial status hearing, parties to report on the following: 1. Possibility of settlement in the case. 2. If no possibility of settlement exists, nature and length of discovery necessary. Discovery plans need not be in writing unless so ordered by the Court. The provisions of FRCP 26(a)(1) shall not apply unless expressly ordered by the Court at the initial or later hearings. Plaintiff is directed to advise all other parties of the Court's action herein. Lead counsel for each party is required to attend the initial hearing. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 03/21/1994)

March 18, 1994
5

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants Jim Edgar, Mary J Broncato by Thomas A. Ioppolo (eav) (Entered: 04/04/1994)

April 1, 1994
6

NOTICE of filing by defendants Jim Edgar, Mary J Broncato regarding attorney appearance [5−1] (eav) (Entered: 04/04/1994)

April 1, 1994
7

MOTION by defendants to extend time to answer or otherwise plead ; Notice of motion (eav) (Entered: 04/13/1994)

April 12, 1994
8

MINUTE ORDER of 4/12/94 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing re−set for 3 May 94 at 9:30 a.m. Defendants' motion for an extension of time to April 29, 1994 to answer or otherwise plead is granted. [7−1] Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 04/13/1994)

April 12, 1994
9

MOTION by defendants to dismiss complaint ; Notice of motion (ldg) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

May 2, 1994
10

MEMORANDUM of law by defendants in support of defendants' motion to dismiss complaint [9−1]. (ldg) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

May 2, 1994

ORAL MOTION by defendants for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages. (ldg) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

May 2, 1994
11

MINUTE ORDER of 5/2/94 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Plaintiffs' response to defendants' motion to dismiss complaint due 05/16/94 [9−1]. Defendants' reply to answer brief due 5/16/94. Ruling on motion to dismiss complaint set for 06/13/94 at 9:30 a.m. [9−1]. Granting defendants' oral motion for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages [0−1]. Status hearing set for 05/03/94 is vacated. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 05/03/1994)

May 2, 1994
12

RESPONSE brief by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss complaint [9−1] (Exhibits). (ldg) (Entered: 05/17/1994)

May 16, 1994
13

REPLY memorandum by defendants in support of motion to dismiss complaint [9−1] (Attachments); Notice of filing (ldg) (Entered: 05/24/1994)

May 23, 1994
14

MEMORANDUM OPINION (ldg) (Entered: 06/13/1994)

June 13, 1994
15

MINUTE ORDER of 6/13/94 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing set for 07/19/94 at 9:30 a.m. Ruling held. Enter memorandum opinion: Defendants' motion to dismiss complaint is granted in part and denied in part [9−1]. Said motion to dismiss Governor Edgar as a named party defendant is granted. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in all other respects. Defendants are given to 07/12/94 to answer the complaint. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 06/13/1994)

June 13, 1994
17

MINUTE ORDER of 7/6/94 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint and [16−1], to substitute parties [16−2]. Defendants are given leave to file motion to dismiss with supporting memorandum by 07/20/94. Answer to said motion due 07/27/94. All briefs are limited to l0 pages. Ruling set for 08/25/94 at 9:30 a.m. Status hearing set for 07/19/94 is stricken. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 07/07/1994)

July 6, 1994
18

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiffs terminating defendant Mary J Broncato; adding Joseph H Spagnola (ldg) (Entered: 07/07/1994)

July 6, 1994
19

ANSWER to the first amended complaint by defendant Joseph H Spagnola; Notice of filing (ldg) (Entered: 07/18/1994)

July 15, 1994
20

MOTION by defendant Jim Edgar to dismiss first amended complaint (ldg) (Entered: 07/21/1994)

July 20, 1994
21

MEMORANDUM of law by defendant Jim Edgar in support of motion to dismiss first amended complaint [20−1]; Notice of filing (ldg) (Entered: 07/21/1994)

July 20, 1994
22

BRIEF by plaintiffs in opposition to Governor Edgar's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint [20−1] (Exhibit) (ldg) (Entered: 07/27/1994)

July 27, 1994
23

MOTION by plaintiffs for class certification ; Notice of motion (ldg) (Entered: 08/23/1994)

Aug. 19, 1994
24

MEMORANDUM of law by plaintiffs in support of motion for class certification [23−1]. (ldg) (Entered: 08/23/1994)

Aug. 19, 1994
25

MINUTE ORDER of 8/19/94 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Answer brief to motion for class certification due 09/02/94 [23−1]. Status hearing set for 09/07/94 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (ldg) (Entered: 08/23/1994)

Aug. 19, 1994
26

MEMORANDUM OPINION (ldg) (Entered: 08/26/1994)

Aug. 25, 1994
27

MINUTE ORDER of 8/25/94 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing reset for 09/28/94 at 9:30 a.m. Ruling held. Enter memorandum opinion: Denying defendant Edgar's motion to dismiss first amended complaint [20−1]. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 08/26/1994)

Aug. 25, 1994
28

AMENDED MOTION by plaintiffs for class certification. (ldg) (Entered: 09/01/1994)

Aug. 26, 1994
29

AGREED MOTION by plaintiffs for entry of protective order (Attachment). (ldg) (Entered: 09/01/1994)

Aug. 26, 1994
30

CLASS certification order [28−1] [23−1]. (ldg) (Entered: 09/01/1994)

Aug. 26, 1994
31

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER [29−1]. (ldg) (Entered: 09/01/1994)

Aug. 26, 1994
32

MINUTE ORDER of 8/26/94 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Granting plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification [28−1], [23−1], Granting agreed motion for entry of protective order [29−1]. All other pending motins are hereby moot. Mailed notice (ldg) (Entered: 09/01/1994)

Aug. 26, 1994
33

MINUTE ORDER of 9/28/94 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing held; continued to 02/28/95 at 9:30 a.m. All discovery to be completed by 02/28/95. No notice (ldg) (Entered: 10/04/1994)

Sept. 28, 1994

SCHEDULE set on 2/14/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing reset to March 2, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. Telephone notice (sct) (Entered: 02/14/1995)

Feb. 14, 1995

SCHEDULE set on 2/28/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing reset to 3/9/95 at 9:30 a.m. Telephone notice (sct) (Entered: 02/28/1995)

Feb. 28, 1995

SCHEDULE set on 3/9/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing held and continued to 4/10/95 at 9:30 a.m. Discovery cut−off date extended to 4/10/95. No

March 9, 1995

SCHEDULE set on 4/12/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing held. Pretrial conference set for 5/9/95 at 10:00 a.m. No notice (sct) (Entered: 04/12/1995)

April 12, 1995

SCHEDULE set on 5/9/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Pretrial conference held. Status hearing set for 7/6/95 at 9:30 a.m. No notice (sct) (Entered: 05/09/1995)

May 9, 1995

SCHEDULE set on 5/31/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing reset to 9:30 7/10/95 . Mailed notice (sct) (Entered: 05/31/1995)

May 31, 1995
34

MOTION by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola to extend time to file statement of stipulated facts ; Notice of motion (eav) (Entered: 07/07/1995)

July 6, 1995
35

MINUTE ORDER of 7/6/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing reset 8/7/95 at 9:30 a.m. Defendants' motion to extend time to file statement of stipulated facts to 8/7/95 is granted. [34−1] Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 07/07/1995)

July 6, 1995
36

STATEMENT of stipiulated facts by plaintiffs and defendants (eav) (Entered: 08/08/1995)

Aug. 7, 1995
37

MINUTE ORDER of 8/7/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing held. Plaintiffs are given to 09/18/95 to file motion for summary judgment. Defendants' answer and cross−motion for summary judgment due 10/18/95. Plaintiffs' reply and answer to cross−motion due 11/01/95. Defendants' reply due 11/09/95. Ruling set for 12/06/95 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 08/08/1995)

Aug. 7, 1995
38

MOTION by plaintiffs for summary judgment (rmm) (Entered: 09/26/1995)

Sept. 25, 1995
39

MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages ; Notice of motion. (rmm) (Entered: 09/26/1995)

Sept. 25, 1995
40

12(m) statement of uncontested material facts by plaintiffs (rmm) (Entered: 09/26/1995)

Sept. 25, 1995
41

MINUTE ORDER of 9/25/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages [39−1] is granted. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 09/26/1995)

Sept. 25, 1995
42

BRIEF by plaintiffs in support of their motion for summary judgment [38−1] (rmm) (Entered: 09/26/1995)

Sept. 25, 1995
43

APPENDIX filed by plaintiffs to brief in support of their motion for summary judgment [38−1] (2 vols: 43−1, 43−2) (rmm) (Entered: 09/26/1995)

Sept. 25, 1995
44

MOTION by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola for an extension of time to file their brief inopposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and in support of defendants' motion for summary judgment ; Notice of motion (rmm) (Entered: 10/19/1995)

Oct. 18, 1995
45

MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Granting defendants' motion for an extension of time [44−1][44−2] to 10/27/95 to answer plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [38−1], and to file their cross motion for summary judgment. Motion deadline 11/10/95. Plaintiffs are given to 11/10/95 to file reply and answer to cross−motion. Defendant's reply is due 11/20/95. Ruling reset from 12/6/95 to 12/14/95 at 9:30 a.m. on motion for summary judgment [38−1]. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 10/19/1995)

Oct. 18, 1995
46

MOTION by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola for summary judgment ; Notice of filing. (rmm) (Entered: 11/01/1995)

Oct. 31, 1995
47

MOTION by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola to file brief in excess of page limite ; Notice of motion (rmm) (Entered: 11/01/1995)

Oct. 31, 1995
49

MINUTE ORDER of 10/31/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Granting defendants' motion to file brief in excess of fifteen pages [47−1]. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 11/01/1995)

Oct. 31, 1995
103195

MEMORANDUM by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola in support of motion for summary judgment [46−1] (rmm) (Entered: 11/01/1995)

Oct. 31, 1995
51

APPENDIX filed by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola to motion for summary judgment [46−1] (1 volume) (rmm) (Entered: 11/01/1995)

Oct. 31, 1995
52

MOTION by plaintiffs for extension of time to file reply brief in supprot of summary judgment and response brief to defendants' cross motion ; Notice of motion. (rmm) (Entered: 11/07/1995)

Nov. 6, 1995
53

MINUTE ORDER of 11/6/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to 11/20/95 to file reply brief in support [52−1] [52−1] motion of summary judgment [38−1] and response brief to defendants' cross motion [46−2] is granted. Defendants' reply due 11/30/95 to motion for summary judgment [46−1]. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 11/07/1995)

Nov. 6, 1995
54

REPLY brief by plaintiffs in furthr support of its motion for summary judgment [38−1] and in opposition to defendants' cross motion for summary judgment (Exhibits) (rmm) (Entered: 11/22/1995)

Nov. 20, 1995
54

OPPOSITION by plaintiffs to defendants' cross−motion for summary judgment [46−1] with reply brief in further support of its motion for summary judgment (Exhibits) (rmm) (Entered: 11/22/1995)

Nov. 20, 1995
55

REPLY brief by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola in support of their motion for summary judgment [46−1] with opposition to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Attachments); Notice of filing. (rmm) (Entered: 12/01/1995)

Nov. 30, 1995
55

OPPOSITION by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola to plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [38−1] with reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment (Attachments); Notice of filing. (rmm) (Entered: 12/01/1995)

Nov. 30, 1995
56

MOTION by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola to delay ruling on cross−motions for summary judgment ; Notice of motion (Attachment) (rmm) (Entered: 12/07/1995)

Dec. 6, 1995
57

MINUTE ORDER of 12/6/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Defendant's motion to delay ruling on cross−motions for summary judgment [56−1] is denied. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 12/07/1995)

Dec. 6, 1995

SCHEDULE set on 12/14/95 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Ruling set for December 14, 1995 is stricken. The Court will rule by mail. Telephone notice (sct) (Entered: 12/14/1995)

Dec. 14, 1995
58

MEMORANDUM OPINION (rmm) (Entered: 02/02/1996)

Feb. 1, 1996
59

MINUTE ORDER of 2/1/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing set for 9:30 2/27/96. Enter memorandum opinion: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [38−1] is granted. Defendants' motion for summary judgment [46−1] is denied. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 02/02/1996)

Feb. 1, 1996

SCHEDULE set on 2/23/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing reset to 9:30 3/5/96 . Telephone notice (sct) (Entered: 02/23/1996)

Feb. 23, 1996

SCHEDULE set on 3/5/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing held and continued to 9:30 4/8/96 . No notice (sct) (Entered: 03/05/1996)

March 5, 1996
60

MOTION by plaintiffs for entry of final judgment order and, order appointing expert witnesses ; Notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 04/05/1996)

April 3, 1996
61

MINUTE ORDER of 4/3/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Denying plaintiffs' motion for entry of final judgment order [60−1], and order appointing expert witnesses [60−2] Status hearing reset to 9:30 am on 4/17/96 . Mailed notice (fce)

April 3, 1996
63

MINUTE ORDER of 4/17/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing held; continued to 10:00 a.m. on 5/29/96. Defendants are directed to submit to the court by 05/22/96, their plan as discussed in open court. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/18/1996)

April 17, 1996
64

Defendants' plan for early intervention services by defendant; Notice of filing. (mak) (Entered: 05/24/1996)

May 22, 1996

SCHEDULE set on 5/29/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing held and continued to 10:00 6/27/96 . No notice (sct) (Entered: 05/29/1996)

May 29, 1996
65

MINUTE ORDER of 6/27/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Defendants reply to plaintiffs' objection to defendants' plan [64−1] due 07/26/96. Status hearing held; continued to 10:00 a.m. 8/15/96 . No notice (mak) (Entered: 06/28/1996)

June 27, 1996
66

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/29/96 Before Honorable Charles P.Kocoras (One volume) (mak) (Entered: 07/17/1996)

July 16, 1996
67

RESPONSE by defendants to plaintiffs' letter of 06/26/96 (Attachment); Notice of filing. (mak) (Entered: 07/29/1996)

July 26, 1996

SCHEDULE set on 8/15/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing reset to 10:00 8/29/96 . Telephone notice (sct) (Entered: 08/15/1996)

Aug. 15, 1996

SCHEDULE set on 8/29/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Status hearing held. No notice (sct) (Entered: 08/29/1996)

Aug. 29, 1996
68

RECOMMENDATION OF EXPERTS to oversee implementation of final order by plaintiffs (Attachments) (mak) (Entered: 09/07/1996)

Sept. 5, 1996
69

FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT (mak) (Entered: 09/20/1996)

Sept. 19, 1996
70

MINUTE ORDER of 9/19/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Enter final order and judgment. terminating case Mailed notice (mak) (Entered: 09/20/1996)

Sept. 19, 1996
71

ENTERED JUDGMENT (mak) (Entered: 09/20/1996)

Sept. 19, 1996
72

STATEMENT by defendants regarding the selection of a monitor; Notice of filing. (mak) (Entered: 10/01/1996)

Sept. 27, 1996
73

MINUTE ORDER of 10/2/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : The court hereby appoints Sharon Walsh for the purpose of monitoring the State of Illinois' compliance with the provisions of the State of Illinois' compliance with the provisions of the court's order of 9/19/96 and reporting on those matters to the court at appropriate intervals. This appointment is based on Ms. Walsh's pror experience in relevant disciplines and her acceptability by both sides in this case. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 10/03/1996)

Oct. 2, 1996
74

MOTION by plaintiffs requesting extension of time for plaintiff's to file bill of costs pursuant to local general rule 45 ; Notice of motion. (fce) (Entered: 10/10/1996)

Oct. 3, 1996
75

MINUTE ORDER of 10/9/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Granting plaintiffs' motion requesting extension of time for plaintiff's to file bill of costs pursuant to local general rule 45 [74−1] until 90 days after the judgment was issued. So ordered. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/10/1996)

Oct. 9, 1996
76

NOTICE OF APPEAL by Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola from judgment entered [71−1], from Scheduling order terminating case [70−1], from motion minute order [70−2], from judgment [69−1] ( Fee Not Paid) (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1996)

Oct. 17, 1996
77

DOCKETING STATEMENT by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola regarding appeal [76−1] . (fce) (Entered: 10/17/1996)

Oct. 17, 1996
78

SEVENTH CIRCUIT transcript information sheet by plaintiff (mak) (Entered: 11/02/1996)

Oct. 24, 1996
79

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal USCA 96−3609 (Attachments) (mak) (Entered: 11/02/1996)

Oct. 24, 1996
80

MOTION by defendants to extend time to complete procedures relating to attorneys' fees ; Notice of motion (yap) (Entered: 12/05/1996)

Nov. 18, 1996
81

MINUTE ORDER of 11/20/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Defendants' motion to extend time to 12/9/96 to complete procedures relating to attorneys' fees [80−1] is granted. Telephoned notice (yap) (Entered: 12/05/1996)

Nov. 20, 1996
82

MOTION by defendants to defer ruling on attorneys' fees ; Notice of motion. (mak) (Entered: 01/02/1997)

Dec. 9, 1996

MINUTE ORDER of 12/12/96 by Hon. Charles P. Kocoras : Granting defendants' motion to defer ruling on attorneys' fees until the completion of the appeal [82−1]. No notice (mak) (Entered: 01/02/1997)

Dec. 12, 1996
84

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 06/27/96 Before Honorable Charles P. Kocoras (One volume) (mak) (Entered: 02/13/1997)

Feb. 11, 1997
85

MOTION by defendants Jim Edgar, Joseph H Spagnola to correct recordon appeal ; Notice of motion. (mak) (Entered: 02/25/1997)

Feb. 19, 1997
86

AFFIDAVIT of Thomas A. Ioppolo regarding motion to correct recordon appeal [85−1] (Exhibits) (mak) (Entered: 02/25/1997)

Feb. 19, 1997

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Education

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 10, 1994

Closing Date: 2005

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Four infants with disabilities, represented by Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, on behalf of a class of approximately 26,000 other children in Illinois who were eligible for, but not receiving, early intervention services.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Governor of Illinois, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1996 - 2000

Content of Injunction:

Reporting

Monitoring

Issues

Disability:

disability, unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run