Lisa Williamson v. Mark Curran, Jr. (2013)

See, e.g. , Williamson v. Curran , 714 F.3d 432 , 436 (7th Cir. 2013) ("What makes it appropriate for us to consider the documents that Williamson has attached to her complaint is that she has not only cited them in the body of her complaint, but she has, to some degree, relied on their contents as support for her claims.").

See Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 441 (7th Cir. 2013) (“When presented with a credible report of criminal behavior, an officer ‘is under no constitutional obligation to exclude all suggestions that the witness or victim is not telling the truth.’”), quoting Reynolds v. Jamison, 488 F.3d 756, 762 (7th Cir. 2007).

The Walgreens manager then positively identified Boddie as the person he had observed driving 10 See Williamson, 714 F.3d at 436 (“’[W]ritten instruments’ attached to a pleading become part of that pleading for all purposes.”) away from the Walgreens in the blue HHR after he had stolen the alcohol.

Id. (“I would ask Mr. Obaisi and other nurses, when am I returning to the U. of I. for my follow-up treatment.

See Pryor v. Corrigan, 124 F.4th 475, 486 (7th Cir. 2024) (holding that “[p]robable cause is an absolute defense to a false arrest claim”) and see Avila v. Pappas, 591 F.3d 552, 554 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (finding that “[p]robable cause is a rational basis for official action”); Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 449 (7th Cir. 2013).

A (electronically stored in the clerk’s office).3 On November 15, 2021, Mark Waters (the chief of police) attended a Curran, 714 F.3d 432 , 435–36 (7th Cir. 2013) (“noting that a court may consider, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, . . . documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it”). 3 Village board meeting and requested that the weight limit for eligible motor trucks be increased from 8,000 to 9,000 pounds.

See Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[A] court may consider . . . documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.").

Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 443-44 (7th Cir. 2013); see Bianchi v. McQueen, 818 F.3d 309, 322 (7th Cir. 2016) (a false arrest claim arises “from a warrantless arrest without probable cause”).

Beginning at least in March 1 When deciding a motion to dismiss, “a court may consider . . . documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

Thus, when a plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document that qualifies as a written instrument, and her complaint references and relies up on that document in asserting her claim, the contents of that document become part of the complaint and may be considered as such.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

At this stage, “a court may consider, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

When ruling on a motion attacking the sufficiency of the pleadings, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, the court may consider “documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

Although the Court normally cannot consider extrinsic evidence without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, Jackson v. Curry, 888 F.3d 259, 263 (7th Cir. 2018), the Court may consider “documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it” in ruling on a motion to dismiss, Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013). did not come to work late.

“So long as an officer reasonably believes the putative victim or eyewitness to a crime is telling the truth, he may rely on the information provided to him by such persons in deciding to make an arrest, without having to conduct an independent investigation into their accounts.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 441 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Abbott v. Sangamon Cty., Ill., 705 F.3d 706, 716 (7th Cir. 2013) (an officer need conduct “no independent investigation . . . [where…

See Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 647–48 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Although a court may generally take judicial notice of public records, under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may judicially notice only a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute.”); Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (court may consider “documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it” in ruling on a motion to dismiss). any amendments, modifications, or addit…

See Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] court may consider, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.”). 2 In Blum, the Court considered whether the state could be sued for the conduct of a private entity, but the principles and conclusions apply.

P. 8(a)(2); Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

Although the Court normally cannot consider extrinsic evidence without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment, Jackson v. Curry, 888 F.3d 259, 263 (7th Cir. 2018), the Court may consider “documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it” in ruling on a motion to dismiss, Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013). managers expressed their anger at Plaintiff, calling her a ‘n____’ and ‘b____’ (profane expressions for Afr…

In addition to the allegations set forth in Ms. Ames's Complaint, we may consider "documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice." Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing cases).

P. 8(a)(2); Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

The analysis the Court undertakes in assessing "futility" on a motion to amend is effectively the same as the inquiry on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and "[o]n a motion to dismiss, a court may consider, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice." Yash Venture Holdin…

The Court may consider, “in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

The Seventh Circuit has instructed that there are three exceptions to this general rule: “documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

The Board’s vote to remove Kraft was rationally justified by his particular disregard for meeting rules and decorum. 5 Outside references incorporated into a plaintiff's complaint “become part of the complaint and may be considered as such when the court decides a motion attacking the sufficiency of the complaint.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 607-08 (7th Cir. 2013) Therefore, Kraft’s equal protection cla…

P. 8(a)(2); Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013).

ENTER: September KF , 2025 J) Y= 0 LEEN LA ESS UNITEDSFATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 Outside references incorporated into a plaintiffs complaint “become part of the complaint and may be considered as such when the court decides a motion attacking the sufficiency of the complaint.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 607-08 (7th Cir. 2013) (considering video incorporated into complaint in review of 12(b)(6) dismissal).

ECF Nos. 1, 1-1–1-6; Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (noting that the Court may consider “documents that are attached to the complaint[ and] documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it” (collecting cases)).

The Court may also consider “documents attached to the complaint, documents central to the complaint and referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.” Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up).

See Otis v. Demarasse, 886 F.3d 639, 644 (7th Cir. 2018) (The Supreme Court cautioned that any “document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’” pro se litigants are granted “leniency . . . on procedural matters.”) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Lovelace v. Dall, 820 F.2d 223, 228 (7th Cir. 1987)); See also Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432 , 435–436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“when a plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document that qualifies as a writt…

See Otis v. Demarasse, 886 F.3d 639, 644 (7th Cir. 2018) (The Supreme Court cautioned that any “document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’” pro se litigants are granted “leniency . . . on procedural matters.”) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Lovelace v. Dall, 820 F.2d 223, 228 (7th Cir. 1987)); See also Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432 , 435–436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“when a plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document that qualifies as a writt…

Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] court may consider … documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.”).

See Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 443 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] written instrument attached to a pleading becomes part of that pleading, so when the plaintiff has attached an instrument to her complaint, a court may consider the contents of that instrument in ruling on a motion to dismiss.”). on noncontracting third parties.

The defendant focuses on the four corners of the charge to argue that “[n]othing in [Rivera’s] charging document refers to any specific conduct that could reasonably be related to a hostile work environment claim.” (R. 21 at 6.) But that ignores both the defendant’s and Rivera’s “position papers.” (R. 19-8, 19-9); see Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider documents . . . attached to the complaint …

The defendant focuses on the four corners of the charge to argue that “[n]othing in [Rivera’s] charging document refers to any specific conduct that could reasonably be related to a hostile work environment claim.” (R. 21 at 6.) But that ignores both the defendant’s and Rivera’s “position papers.” (R. 19-8, 19-9); see Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider documents . . . attached to the complaint …

Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] court may consider, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.”). 1.

See Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 441 (7th Cir. 2013) ("The existence of probable cause does not depend on the truth of a complaint of wrongdoing.").

See Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] court may consider, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.”); Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir.2013) (considering video cited in and attached to complaint).

See Lax v. Mayorkas, 20 F.4th 1178, 1181 (7th Cir. 2021); Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“the contents of [an attached] document become part of the complaint and may be considered as such when the court decides a motion attacking the sufficiency of the complaint.”).

Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[W]hen a plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document that qualifies as a written instrument, and her complaint references and relies upon that document in asserting her claim, the contents of that document become part of the complaint and may be considered as such.”).

Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[W]hen a plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document that qualifies as a written instrument, and her complaint references and relies upon that document in asserting her claim, the contents of that document become part of the complaint and may be considered as such.”). “suspension” must be caused by direct physical loss of or damage to property at a “premises” at which a Limit of Insurance is shown on the Declaratio…

Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[W]hen a plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document that qualifies as a written instrument, and her complaint references and relies upon that document in asserting her claim, the contents of that document become part of the complaint and may be considered as such.”). “period of restoration” that you would not have incurred if there had been no direct physical loss or damage to property caused by or resulting from …

See Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] court may consider, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint . . ..”).

See also Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 449 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] class-of-one equal protection claim . . . at a minimum would require proof that the defendants intentionally treated [plaintiff] differently from others situated similarly to her for no rational reason.”).9 See also Swanson v. City of Chetek, 719 F.3d 780, 783-84 (7th Cir. 2013). 9 It remains unresolved in the Seventh Circuit whether the plaintiff in a “class of one” claim must also demonstrate that the d…

See Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider “documents . . . attached to the complaint, documents . . . central to the complaint and . . . referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.”).

See also Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 449 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] class-of-one equal protection claim . . . at a minimum would require proof that the defendants intentionally treated [plaintiff] differently from others situated similarly to her for no rational reason.”).6 That means for either type of equal protection claim, Plaintiff must prove that the disparate treatment he was subjected to was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Inc., 29 F.3d 1244 , 1248 (7th Cir. 1994), Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[A] court may consider, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself, documents that are attached to the complaint, documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it, and information that is properly subject to judicial notice.”).

See Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 436 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e have taken a broader view of documents that may be considered on a motion to dismiss, noting that a court may consider, in addition to the allegations set forth in the complaint itself . . . documents that are central to the complaint and are referred to in it.”) Stewart’s allegation runs into the legal brick wall laid out above: obtaining a consumer’s credit report to help collect a debt is a permissible pur…

See Otis v. Demarasse, 886 F.3d 639, 644 (7th Cir. 2018) (The Supreme Court “cautioned that any “document filed pro se is to be liberally construed,” pro se litigants are granted “leniency…on procedural matters.” (quotingErickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);Lovelace v. Dall, 820 F.2d 223, 228 (7th Cir. 1987)); see also Williamson v. Curran, 714 F.3d 432, 435-36 (7th Cir. 2013) (“when a plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document that qualifies as a written instrumen…

See 714 F.3d at 436 (“What makes it appropriate for us to consider the documents that Williamson has attached to her complaint is that she has not only cited them in the body of her complaint, but she has, to some degree, relied on their contents as support for her claims.”).