Civil Procedure — costs

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Civil

Civil Procedure — costs

A party entitled to costs is not required to alert the district court that his ruling is due, or forfeit their rights.

“Nagging judges to act on motions under advisement is not essential to preserving one’s rights. The court’s docket-tracking software, and each judge’s duty to report every six months on all motions under advisement, are designed to keep matters moving without the need for litigants to communicate impatience. Their shortcomings do not oblige litigants to supplement them with ticklers. The decisions on which plaintiffs rely, such as In re Plunkett, 82 F.3d 738, 742 (7th Cir. 1996), and Zelazny v. Lyng, 853 F.2d 540 (7th Cir. 1988), deal with delay in filing suits or motions, not with litigants’ silence after matters are under advisement. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ lawyer candidly admitted that she did not know of any decision, by any court, creating a badger-the-judge-or-forfeit-the-motion requirement; our search did not turn one up. We will not be the first. The obligation to render timely rulings rests on the judiciary, not the parties. This litigation has lasted far too long. At last it is over.”

Affirmed.

13-2197 NOW, Inc., v. Scheidler

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Norgle, J., Easterbrook, J.