Dennis Hastert and Judge Robert Pilmer

On Tuesday, Judge Robert Pilmer (right photo) denied motions for summary judgment in the James Doe $1.8 million lawsuit against former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Dennis Hastert (left photo). (Hastert photo provided; Pilmer photo for WSPYNews.com by James Wyman)

The $1.8 million lawsuit filed by former Yorkville H.S. wrestler James Doe against the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Dennis Hastert may now be going to trial in November.

In an order filed on Tuesday, Judge Robert Pilmer denied summary judgment motions from Hastert's attorney John Ellis and Doe's attorney Kristi Browne.

Courts will grant a motion for summary judgment and enter judgment in favor of the party filing the motion when the party filing the motion can show that: (1) there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case; and (2) based on the undisputed facts, the party filing the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Judge Pilmer's order clears the way for Doe's lawsuit to go to trial, with jury selection already set for Wednesday, November 13 and the start of the jury trial scheduled for Monday, November 18.

In his order, Judge Pilmer wrote that issuing a summary judgment "is a drastic measure and should be granted only if the moving party's right to a judgment is clear and free from doubt."

In the spring of 2010, James Doe and Hastert reached an agreement that Hastert would pay Doe $3.5 million in exchange for Doe's silence regarding a sexual assault by Hastert that occurred when Doe was 14 years old and participating in Hastert's wrestling camp.

Hastert taught social studies and coached wrestling at Yorkville High School from 1965 to 1981.

Hastert paid Doe $1.7 million of the promised hush money, and in April of 2016, Doe sued Hastert for the rest of the money.

Hastert is also counter-suing Doe for the $1.7 million already paid to Doe.

Judge Pilmer wrote in his decision that after Doe entered into the agreement with Hastert, he had an obligation not to discuss it further.

Judge Pilmer writes in his order:  "He [Doe] breached that obligation by continuing to discuss it with his family members as well as with a friend from high school.  It is also evident that at least one person with whom he [Doe] discussed the existence of the the agreement redisclosed the information to others."

Lawyers in the Doe vs. Hastert lawsuit are scheduled to be in Kendall County Court this Friday at 1:00 p.m.