Modify Mailing List Subscriptions Community News Archive Community Related Lawsuit Update
Related Lawsuit Update
|
|
 |
MEDIA RELEASE |
District 39 Reports Progress in Similar LawsuitJudge Denies Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Filed Against Oak Park School District 97(Wilmette, IL…) District 39 has been closely watching as a lawsuit filed against Oak Park School District 97 progresses. The situation in Oak Park is similar to that in District 39; a referendum recently passed, followed by the filing of a lawsuit by an Oak Park resident and Taxpayers United of America alleging that the language used on Oak Park’s ballot misled voters. Just as in District 39’s case, the Oak Park lawsuit sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the voter-approved tax levy from moving forward. Today, the Oak Park case progressed as Judge Mary Mikva denied the temporary restraining order sought by the resident and Taxpayers United of America. Judge Mikva’s ruling now allows District 97 to approve and file its amended levy. District 39 approved and filed its amended levy before the filing of the motion for temporary restraining order against it. District 39 Superintendent Ray Lechner commented, “Oak Park’s situation is similar to ours; we have reason to believe that our case will be decided in a consistent way as it unfolds. We are encouraged that the judge in this case ruled favorably for Oak Park.” Click here to read the judge’s order in the Oak Park case. District 39 had its first court appearance yesterday before Judge Rita Novak who dismissed with prejudice the claims against the individual members of District 39’s Board of Education, leaving only the district as a defendant. For the remainder of the case, the judge set a briefing schedule on the District’s motion to dismiss with a hearing date of June 23, 2011 on the District’s motion and the Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. Judge Novak’s order can be found here. A copy of the District 39’s motion filed on May 23, 2011 is available here, which provides detail of the District’s case. |
|
|
|
|
