ZHOU v. BELANGER, No. 1:2007cv00633 - Document 130 (S.D. Ind. 2010)

Court Description: Entry Concerning Selected Matters - The plaintiffs' motion to compel the defendant to produce certain documents (dkt 127) and the plaintiff's motion to compel third parties to produce certain documents (dkt 128) are each denied. (See Entry) The plaintiff's notice of appeal (dkt 128) shall be separately docketed and processed as an appeal from the ruling issued on February 18, 2010. That ruling, however, is not a final judgment and is not otherwise appealable at this time under any rule, statute, or body of law. It is thus ineffective. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 3/8/2010. c/m (TMA)

Download PDF
ZHOU v. BELANGER Doc. 130 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA YONGPING ZHOU, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, vs. PATRICK T. BELANGER, Defendant. 1:07-cv-0633-WTL-TAB Entry Concerning Selected Matters I. “Once a party invokes the judicial system by filing a lawsuit, it must abide by the rules of the court; a party can not decide for itself when it feels like pressing its action and when it feels like taking a break because trial judges have a responsibility to litigants to keep their court calendars as current as humanly possible.” James v. McDonald’s Corp., 417 F.3d 672, 681 (7th Cir. 2005), citing GCIU Employer Ret. Fund v. Chicago Tribune Co., 8 F.3d 1195, 1198-99 (7th Cir. 1993)(internal quotations omitted). The plaintiff is admonished to take heed of the foregoing. Guided by this principle, and referencing the recent and explicit ruling in paragraph 1 of the Entry issued on February 19, 2010, the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the defendant to produce certain documents (dkt 127) and the plaintiff’s motion to compel third parties to produce certain documents (dkt 128) are each denied. II. A. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal (dkt 128) shall be separately docketed and processed. B. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the ruling issued on February 18, 2010 will be processed. That ruling, however, is not a final judgment and is not otherwise appealable at this time under any rule, statute, or body of law. It is thus ineffective. The parties are notified that proceedings in this court are not stayed automatically by the filing of that appeal and neither this court nor the Court of Appeals has entered an order staying further development of the action. Proceedings in this court are not stayed. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________ Date: 03/08/2010 Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Dockets.Justia.com Distribution: Jonathan Lamont Mayes CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, CORPORATION COUNSEL jmayes@indygov.org Richard G. McDermott CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, CORPORATION COUNSEL rmcdermo@indygov.org Yongping Zhou PO Box 928645 San Diego, CA 92192

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.