Copyright 2024 All Rights Reserved.

April 24, 2024

Algonquin Township Attorney James Kelly files motion in case not involving the Township?

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On August 2, 2018

McHenry Co. (ECWd)

James Kelly, attorney for the Algonquin Township, has filed this motion to Modify a Court order but there is just one small problem or a big one if you’re James Kelly.  The motion he filed was on behalf of the Township, which is not even named in the case he cites!

The defendants named in the motion he filed are Karen Lukasik, individually and in her capacity as Algonquin Township Clerk, Anna May Miller, and Robert Miller. Lukasik has her own attorney handling her case and neither Anna May Miller or Robert Miller worked for the Township so Kelly can’t represent them.

Why did Kelly file a motion in a case that the Township is not named in? 

Rob Hanlon, the attorney for the Road District didn’t waste any time filing a response to Kelly’s motion.  That response can be viewed below or downloaded at this link.   I think the eleven points made by Hanlon are pretty clear.

Any guesses as to what the Judge is going to say on this one? 

1) The motion to modify a prior order of this court is advanced by Algonquin Township. 
2) Algonquin Township is not a party to this action.
3) Algonquin Township has not been a party to this action at any time.
4) Algonquin Township is not a named Defendant in this cause.
5) The briefing schedule issued in this case is directed to Plaintiffs and defendants in this case, not Algonquin Township.
6) Algonquin Township has not interplead into this cause of action.
7) Algonquin Township does not have any obligation to respond to the 4th Amended Complaint.
8) The Motion advanced by Algonquin Township ought to be denied outright for the simple reason it is not a party to this action and extending the time for it to answer or otherwise plead is simply confusing and serves to create issues that are not before the court.
9) The Motion to Modify Court Order is signed by counsel for counter-defendant, Charles Lutzow. Mr. Lutzow has no obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s 4th Amended Complaint because he is not a named defendant to the 4th Amended Complaint.
10) Charles Lutzow has never been named as a Defendant.
11) The motion is advanced for no legitimate purpose and serves only to waste the court’s time.

Response to Motion to modify court order with exhibit (002)

Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we
ask that you consider donating at the below link.


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print


1 Comment
  • edward j franckowiak
    Posted at 21:25h, 02 August

    Isn’t that interesting. Now lets see if he charges the township for preparing this filing?