Cardenas, et al. v. City of Chicago, et al., No. 10-3301 (7th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs sued the City of Chicago and a named police officer, bringing three state law and two federal claims on the allegedly unlawful search of plaintiffs' apartment. At issue was whether the district court erred in granting the officer's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and, if the district court erred in its service of process determinations, whether the district court's grant of the City's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) should be reversed. The court held that the district court did not err in determining that plaintiffs had not served the officer within the 120 day period where the officer's summons, which plaintiffs directed to the Chicago Police Department Headquarters, care of the Superintendent, was returned unserved because serving an individual's employer or other putative agent was not sufficient for service on the individual. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to extend the period in which plaintiffs could serve the officer and therefore, affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' suit.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.