Drew Peterson v. JPMorganChase case 1:09-cv-06746 APPEALED - Justice Café -

APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT FROM AND FILED IN THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DREW W. PETERSON, )

) Appeal No. _________ Plaintiff, )

) District Court Case No. 1:09-cv-6746 v. )

) Hon. Ronald A. Guzman ) U.S. District Judge

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, ) d/b/a “CHASE”, ) Hon. Nan R. Nolan

) U.S. Magistrate Judge Defendant. )

NOTICE OF APPEAL

To: Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, LeAnn Pedersen Pope, Michael G. Salemi, Victoria R. Collado, and Bruke, Warren, McKay & Serritla

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff-Appellant, Drew W. Peterson, appeals to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, from the District Court’s the

Order Memorandum entered April 29, 2010 (Docs. No. 82, 83), and Order entered June

24, 2010 (Doc. 112), Order dated and entered September 8, 2010 (Doc. 115), Order dated

and entered September 8, 2010 (Doc. 118), and Judgment Order dated and entered

September 17, 2010 (Doc. 119), by electronically filing this Notice of Appeal with the

Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on the 29th day of

September, 2010, and seeks reversal thereof, remandment for further proceedings, and

such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the premises.

_/s/ Walter P. Maksym, Jr.___________

Walter P. Maksym, Jr. Attorney for Plaintiffs-Appellants

2056 N. Lincoln Avenue Chicago, IL 60614-4525 Telephone: (312) 218-4475

e-mail: [email protected]

Case: 1:09-cv-06746 Document #: 120 Filed: 09/29/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:960Case: 1:09-cv-06746 Document #: 122 Filed: 09/30/10 Page 1 of 29 PageID #:963

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that he served true and correct copies of the foregoing by electronically filing them on September 29, 2010 with the Clerk U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification by electronic mail to the following counsel for Defendant-Appellee:

LeAnn Pedersen Pope

Michael G. Salemi Victoria R. Collide Burke, Warren, McKay & Serritla 30 N. Wabash Avenue, 22nd Floor

Chicago, IL 60611-3607

_/s/ Walter P. Maksym, Jr.______________ Walter P. Maksym, Jr.


SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INFORMATION SHEET

Include the names of all plaintiffs (petitioners) and defendants (respondents) who are partiesto the appeal. Use a separate sheet if needed.

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DOCKET NUMBER: 09cv6746

PLAINTIFF (Petitioner) v. DEFENDANT (Respondent)

Drew W. Petterson/Appellant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA/Appellee

(Use separate sheet for additional counsel)

PETITIONER’S COUNSEL RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

Name Walter Peter Maksym, Jr. Name LeAnn Pedersen Pope

Firm Attorney at Law Firm Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C.

Address2056 North Lincoln Ave.Chicago, IL 60614-4525 Address

330 North Wabash Ave22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60611-3607

Phone 312-218-4475 Phone 312-840-7000

Other Information

District Judge Guzman Date Filed in District Court 10/26/2009

Court Reporter N. LaBella 6890 Date of Judgment 4/29/10, 9/17/2010

Nature of Suit Code 371 Date of Notice of Appeal 9/29/2010

COUNSEL: Appointed Retained X Pro Se

FEE STATUS: Paid X Due IFP

IFP Pending U.S. Waived

Has Docketing Statement been filed with the District Court Clerk’s Office? Yes No X

If State/Federal Habeas Corpus (28 USC 2254/28 USC 2255), was Certificate of Appealability:

Granted Denied Pending

If Certificate of Appealability was granted or denied, date of order:

If defendant is in federal custody, please provide U.S. Marshall number (USM#):

IMPORTANT: THIS FORM IS TO ACCOMPANY THE SHORT RECORD SENT TO THE CLERK OFTHE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 3(A). Rev 04/01

Case: 1:09-cv-06746 Document #: 122 Filed: 09/30/10 Page 3 of 29 PageID #:965

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.0.3

Eastern Division

Drew W. PetersonPlaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:09−cv−06746Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

JPMorgan Chase Bank NADefendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, April 29, 2010:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Pursuant to MemorandumOpinion and Order dated 4/29/10, the Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss [doc. no.27] and dismisses plaintiffs complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff may amend hiscomplaint in accordance with this Order on or before May 6, 2010. If he fails to do so, theCourt will dismiss this suit with prejudice. Defendant may file a response to any amendedcomplaint on or before May 10, 2010. The Court strikes the summary judgment briefingschedule set forth in the April 7, 2010 order [doc. no. 72]. Summary judgment motions, ifany, must be filed by June 1, 2010. If only one party moves for summary judgment,response is due June 15, 2010 and reply is due June 29, 2010. Crossmotions will bebriefed as set forth in the Court's standing order. Ruling on any summary judgmentmotions will be by mail. SO ORDERED. Mailed notice (cjg, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It wasgenerated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil andcriminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, pleaserefer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit ourweb site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DREW W. PETERSON, ))

Plaintiff, )) No. 09 C 6746

v. )) Judge Ronald A. Guzmán

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ))

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff has sued defendant for its alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act and state

law. The case is before the Court on defendant’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss the complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

Facts

On May 18, 2005, the parties entered into a contract for a twenty-year home equity line of

credit (“HELOC”) in the amount of $220,000.00. (Compl. ¶ 10.) On May 7, 2009, plaintiff was

arrested on murder charges and has been held in a state detention facility ever since. (Id. ¶ 11.)

After his arrest, plaintiff drew on the HELOC to pay his expenses. (Id. ¶ 12.) On May 15, 2009,

defendant suspended the HELOC “because of a material change in [plaintiff’s] financial condition,”

namely “[i]mprisonment,” prompting this suit. (See id.)

Discussion


On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual

allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Hecker v. Deere

& Co., 556 F.3d 575, 580 (7th Cir. 2009). “[A] complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations” but must contain “enough facts to state a claim

for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

In Counts I and II, plaintiff alleges that defendant suspended his HELOC in violation of the

Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). With certain exceptions, that statute bars creditors from unilaterally

changing the terms of HELOC agreements. 15 U.S.C. § 1647(c). One exception allows a creditor

to “[p]rohibit additional extensions of credit or reduce the credit limit applicable to [a HELOC]

during any period in which the creditor has reason to believe that the consumer will be unable to

comply with the repayment requirements . . . due to a material change in the consumer’s financial

circumstances.” 15 U.S.C. § 1647(c)(2)(C); see 12 C.F.R. § 226.5b(f)(3)(vi)(B) (same). Defendant

says it suspended the HELOC because it believes plaintiff’s arrest and detention for first degree

murder will impair his ability to make HELOC payments. (See Compl., Ex. C, Letter to Drew &

Stacy Peterson from Chase dated 5/19/09.) Plaintiff says that justification is baseless because he has

alleged that his income, which is comprised of pension and social security benefits, is not affected

by his incarceration. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-18.)

The assumption underlying plaintiff’s argument is that “financial circumstances,” for the

purposes of TILA section 1647(c)(2)(C), means “income.” That language does not appear in the

statute, however, and the staff interpretation of Regulation Z indicates that “financial circumstances”

encompasses more than income. Id.; 12 C.F.R. § 226.5b(f)(3)(vi)(B); see 12 C.F.R. § 226, Supp.

I (saying that decreased income is an example, not the universe, of changed financial circumstances).

2


Nonetheless, plaintiff contends that two district courts have agreed with his interpretation

and urges the Court to follow their lead. In the first case, Schulken v. Washington Mutual Bank, the

financial circumstance defendants cited for suspending plaintiffs’ HELOC was that their income had

dropped. No. C-09-02708 JW, 2009 WL 4173525, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2009). Because the

alleged income change was the only reason defendants gave for the suspension in that case, the

parties used “financial circumstances” and “income” interchangeably. Id. However, the Schulken

court did not hold that the terms are interchangeable. In fact, the court dismissed the TILA claim

on other grounds without even addressing the issue. Id. at *4. Given its unique facts and inapposite

holding, Schulken does not support plaintiff’s argument.

Nor does Levin v. Citibank N.A., No. C-09-0350 MMC, 2009 WL 3008378 (N.D. Cal. Sept.

17, 2009), the other case plaintiff cites. The issue in Levin was whether defendant had properly

invoked the TILA exception in section 1647(c)(2)(B), which permits a creditor to suspend a HELOC

if the value of the property securing it decreases significantly, not the exception in 1647(c)(2)(C)

for changed financial circumstances. Id. at *1-2. Because the meaning of financial circumstances

was not even presented to, let alone ruled on, by the Levin court, the case has no application here.

Plaintiff does not offer any other authority for his crabbed interpretation of “financial

circumstances,” and the Court has found none. Moreover, Seventh Circuit decisions in other

contexts demonstrate that financial condition depends on both income and expenses. See Rivera v.

City of Chi., 469 F.3d 631, 635 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that a losing party can be excused from

paying costs under Rule 54(d) only if evidence about his “income/assets and expenses” shows that

he is “incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at this time or in the future” (quotation omitted));

Goulet v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 284 F.3d 773, 777 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating that a student loan

3


will be discharged in bankruptcy only if the debtor shows that “he cannot maintain, based on current

income and expenses, a minimal standard of living for himself and his dependents if forced to repay

the loan[]”). Given TILA’s plain language, the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in analogous cases and

the utter lack of support for plaintiff’s view, the Court holds that “financial circumstances,” as it is

used in TILA section 1647(c)(2)(C), does not refer solely to “income.”

Plaintiff’s TILA suspension claim does not pass muster under the Court’s interpretation of

the statute. Though plaintiff alleges that the murder charge does not affect his income, he does not

say that his expenses are similarly unaffected. In fact, his allegations suggest the reverse. (See

Compl. ¶ 39(a)-(m) (alleging that plaintiff needs multiple lawyers, experts and other professionals

to defend against the charge).) Because plaintiff’s allegations do not state a plausible claim for relief

on the TILA suspension claim, the Court dismisses it.

In Count III of the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated TILA by sending him

a suspension notice that was “untimely and/or did not contain sufficiently specific . . . reasons” for

the action. (Id. ¶ 45.) But, in his response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff does nothing to defend

the timeliness claim and concedes that the specificity claim has no merit. (See Pl.’s Mem. Opp’n

Mot. Dismiss at 11 (“In compliance with [sic] first Regulation Z disclosure requirement, the

[suspension] notice letter identified the specific reasons for the suspension of the Petersons’ HELOC

. . . .”).) Given plaintiff’s abandonment of these claims, the Court grants defendant’s motion to

dismiss them and the state claims based on the same alleged deficiencies asserted in Counts V and

VI. (See Compl. ¶¶ 58, 67.)1

1Because plaintiff also abandons the Count VIII unjust enrichment claim, the Court dismisses it as well. (See Pl.’s Mem. Opp’n Mot. Dismiss at 14.)

4


In Counts IV and V, plaintiff alleges that defendant breached the terms of the parties’

contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by baselessly suspending the HELOC. (Id.

¶¶ 52, 57.) In Count VII, he alleges that defendant’s suspension notice is fraudulent because it

falsely states that plaintiff’s incarceration is a material change to his financial condition. (Id. ¶¶ 70-

74.) In Count XI, plaintiff alleges that defendant defamed him by making the baseless HELOC

suspension “part of his credit information.” (Id. ¶ 100.) In Count XII, he alleges that defendant’s

baseless suspension of the HELOC intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him. (Id. ¶ 102.)

Though these claims are based on different legal theories, they all have the same factual premise –

that the murder charge does not affect plaintiff’s financial condition. Because, as discussed above,

plaintiff has not adequately alleged this fact, the Court dismisses these claims.

In Count VI, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act

because its statements about “the availability of credit through the HELOC” and “potential bases

for reducing credit limits” were false. (Id. ¶ 65.) If this claim shares the factual premise of the

claims discussed above, it fails for the same reason. If this claim has some other factual basis, it

fails for lack of specificity under Rule 9(b). See id.; Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc.

v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., Inc., 536 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2008).

The two remaining counts, IX and X, seek specific remedies for the defunct state-law claims.

Accordingly, they are also dismissed.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss [doc. no. 27]

and dismisses plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff may amend his complaint in

5


accordance with this Order on or before May 6, 2010. If he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this

suit with prejudice. Defendant may file a response to any amended complaint on or before May 10,

2010. The Court strikes the summary judgment briefing schedule set forth in the April 7, 2010 order

[doc. no. 72]. Summary judgment motions, if any, must be filed by June 1, 2010. If only one party

moves for summary judgment, response is due June 15, 2010 and reply is due June 29, 2010. Cross-

motions will be briefed as set forth in the Court’s standing order. Ruling on any summary judgment

motions will be by mail.

SO ORDERED. ENTERED:

April 29, 2010

________________________________HON. RONALD A. GUZMANUnited States District Judge

6



Eastern Division





This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, June 24, 2010:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on6/24/2010. Motion by Plaintiff for leave to file second amended complaint [105] is denied.Mailed notice (cjg, )





Eastern Division





This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, September 8, 2010:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Plaintiff's amendedcomplaint does not cure the defects noted by the Court in its April 29, 2010 MemorandumOpinion and Order dismissing plaintiff's initial complaint. Therefore, the Court grantsdefendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint [doc. no. 87] and terminates thiscase. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)





Eastern Division





This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, September 17, 2010:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Defendant's motion to enterfinal judgment [doc. no. 116] is granted. The Court enters judgment in favor of defendant,JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, and against plaintiff, Drew W. Peterson, on all of theremaining claims in this suit. Mailed notice (cjg, )




AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

United States District CourtNorthern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

Peterson JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v. Case Number: 09 C 6746

JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

G Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have beentried and the jury rendered its verdict.

O Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issueshave been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court enters judgment in favor ofdefendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, and against plaintiff, Drew W. Peterson, on all of theremaining claims in this suit.

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: 9/17/2010 ________________________________/s/ Carole Gainer, Deputy Clerk


United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.1.1 (Chicago)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cv-06746 Internal Use Only

APPEAL, NOLAN, PROTO, TERMED

Peterson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Assigned to: Honorable Ronald A. Guzman Demand: $75,000 Cause: 15:1640 Truth in Lending

Date Filed: 10/26/2009 Date Terminated: 09/08/2010 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 371 Truth in Lending Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson represented by Walter Peter Maksym , Jr.

Attorney at Law 2056 North Lincoln Avenue Chicago, IL 60614-4525 (312) 218-4475 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA doing business as CHASE

represented by LeAnn Pedersen Pope Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C. 330 North Wabash Avenue 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60611-3607 (312) 840-7000 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Victoria R. Collado Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, PC

Page 1 of 15CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.1.1 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois

9/30/2010https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?226440983840608-L_674_0-1


330 North Wabash 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60611-3607 (312) 840-7048 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael G. Salemi Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, PC 330 North Wabash 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60611-3607 (312) 840-7112 Fax: (312) 840-7900 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

10/26/2009 1 COMPLAINT and Jury Demand filed by Drew W. Peterson; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 07520000000004223217. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit ExhibitA-Chase-Peterson-HELOC, # 2 Exhibit ExhibitB-PetersonIndictment&Warrant, # 3 Exhibit ExhibitC-ChaseSuspensionLetter, # 4 Exhibit ExhibitD-OrestLechnowskyAffidavit, # 5 Exhibit ExhibitE-ChristinaGriegoAffidavit, # 6 Exhibit ExhibitF-MichaelDunnAffidavit, # 7 Exhibit ExhibitG-KeithMcLendonAffidavit.)(Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/26/2009 2 Appearance by Drew W. Peterson (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/26/2009 3 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 10/26/2009)

10/27/2009 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Morton Denlow. (kjd, ) (Entered: 10/27/2009)

10/28/2009 4 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (vmj, ) (Entered: 10/28/2009)




10/29/2009 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The Court orders the parties to appear for an initial status hearing. All parties shall refer to and comply with Judge Guzman's requirements for the initial appearance as outlined in Judge Guzman's case management procedures, which can be found at: www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Status hearing set for 12/21/2009 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 10/29/2009)

11/02/2009 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Drew W. Peterson as to JPMorgan Chase Bank NA on 10/29/2009, answer due 11/18/2009. (vmj, ) (Entered: 11/05/2009)

11/03/2009 6 AFFIDAVIT of Service filed by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson regarding Complaint & Summons served on Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA a/k/a "CHASE" c/o its registered agent: CT Corporation Systems on October 29, 2009 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 11/03/2009)

11/09/2009 8 MOTION by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson to expedite and Advance on Docket (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 11/09/2009)

11/09/2009 9 MEMORANDUM by Drew W. Peterson in support of motion to expedite 8 and Advance on Docket (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit GroupExhibitNo.1, # 2 Exhibit ExhibitNo.2, # 3 Exhibit ExhibitNo.3)(Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 11/09/2009)

11/09/2009 10 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re MOTION by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson to expedite and Advance on Docket 8 , memorandum in support of motion 9 Notice of Filing (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 11/09/2009)

11/09/2009 11 NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of motion to expedite 8 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/12/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 11/09/2009)

11/10/2009 12 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re MOTION by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson to expedite and Advance on Docket 8 , memorandum in support of motion 9 AMENDED NOTICE OF FILING (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/10/2009 13 AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of motion to expedite 8 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/12/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/10/2009 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion




by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson to expedite and Advance on Docket 8 is denied as premature, defendant's answer is not due until 11/18/09. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/10/2009 15 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA by LeAnn Pedersen Pope (Pope, LeAnn) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/10/2009 16 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA by Michael G. Salemi (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/10/2009 17 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re memorandum in support of motion 9 Motion[8} to Expedite-Second Amended Notice of Filing (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/10/2009 18 SECOND AMENDED ( 8 & 9 Mot to Expedite) NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/19/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Maksym, Walter) Modified on 11/12/2009 (hp, ). (Entered: 11/10/2009)

11/16/2009 19 MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff's complaint (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

11/16/2009 20 NOTICE of Motion by Michael G. Salemi for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer 19 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 11/19/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

11/16/2009 21 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 11/16/2009)

11/17/2009 22 RESPONSE memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion to expedite and advance on docket by defendant 8 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pope, LeAnn) (Text modified on 11/18/2009 (vmj, ). (Entered: 11/17/2009)

11/18/2009 23 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's motion for an extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead 19 (Maksym, Walter) (Text modified on 11/19/2009 (vmj, ). (Entered: 11/18/2009)

11/18/2009 24 REPLY memoranda in support of motion to expedite and advance on docket by Drew W. Peterson 22 . (Maksym, Walter) (Text modified on 11/19/2009 (vmj, ). (Entered: 11/18/2009)




11/18/2009 25 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re response in opposition to motion 23 , reply to response to motion 24 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 11/18/2009)

11/19/2009 26 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on 11/19/2009. Motion by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson to expedite 18 is denied. Motion by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead to complaint 19 is granted to and including 12/9/09. Status hearing set for 12/21/09 is reset to 12/16/2009 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 11/19/2009)

12/11/2009 27 MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2009)

12/11/2009 28 NOTICE of Motion by Michael G. Salemi for presentment of motion to dismiss 27 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 12/17/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2009)

12/11/2009 29 MEMORANDUM by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA in support of motion to dismiss 27 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1-4 in Support of Memo)(Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2009)

12/11/2009 30 STATUS Report by Drew W. Peterson, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2009)

12/14/2009 31 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA by Victoria R. Collado (Collado, Victoria) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/15/2009 32 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman Set deadlines as to motion by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 27 : Response due by 1/12/2010. Reply due by 1/26/2010. Ruling to be by mail. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

12/16/2009 33 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held on 12/16/2009. Reset deadlines as to motion by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 27 : Response due by 1/4/2010. Reply due by 1/19/2010. Ruling to be by mail. Fact discovery ordered closed by 2/1/2010. Responses to document requests to be completed within 15 days. Status hearing set for 2/3/2010 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 12/16/2009)




12/23/2009 34 Rule 26 (A)(1) Disclosures by Drew W. Peterson (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 35 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re other 34 NoticeofFilingPlaintiff'sRule26(A)(1)Disclosures (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

01/04/2010 36 RESPONSE by Drew W. Petersonin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint 27 E-FILED1/4/10 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 01/04/2010)

01/05/2010 37 MEMORANDUM by Drew W. Peterson in Opposition to motion to dismiss 27 E-FILED1/4/09 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit"A"toMEMO, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit"B"toMEMO)(Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 01/05/2010)

01/05/2010 38 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re memorandum in opposition to motion 37 , response in opposition to motion 36 E-FILED1/4/10 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 01/05/2010)

01/19/2010 39 REPLY by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to motion to dismiss 27 (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 01/19/2010)

01/27/2010 40 MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA for extension of time to complete discovery for limited purposes (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits 1-12)(Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 01/27/2010)

01/27/2010 41 NOTICE of Motion by Michael G. Salemi for presentment of motion for extension of time to complete discovery 40 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 2/2/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 01/27/2010)

01/29/2010 42 MOTION by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for partial summary judgment as to Counts I, II, III, & IV (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 01/29/2010)

01/29/2010 43 NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of motion for partial summary judgment 42 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 2/2/2009 at 09:30 AM. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 01/29/2010)

02/02/2010 44 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on 2/2/2010. Motion by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA for extension of time to complete discovery for limited purposes 40 is granted as stated in open court. Discovery ordered




closed by 3/5/2010. Motion by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for partial summary judgment as to Counts I, II, III, & IV 42 is stricken. Status hearing reset for 3/5/2010 at 09:30 AM. All discovery issues are referred to Magistrate Judge. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 02/02/2010)

02/04/2010 45 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Transfer of case to the Executive Committee for a Referral to Magistrate Judge. Case referred to the Honorable Nan R. Nolan Signed by Executive Committee on 2/4/2010 re all discovery issues.(vmj, ) (Entered: 02/08/2010)

02/08/2010 46 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Initial status hearing set for 2/16/2010 at 09:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in Courtroom 1858. Counsel shall file and deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, Room 1870, at least three (3) business days before the initial status conference. If counsel have recently prepared and filed an initial status report, the submission of a previously filed initial status report to chambers is sufficient. If applicable, counsel shall also present a completed Agreed Scheduling Order, which is available on this Courts web page, at the initial status conference. Counsel are expected to follow Judge Nolans Case Management Procedures and be familiar with other important information posted on her web page (http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/Judges.aspx), including (when applicable)The Sedona Conference Cooperation Proclamation.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 02/08/2010)

02/12/2010 47 SUPPLEMENT to Joint Initial Status Report by Drew W. Peterson (Maksym, Walter) (Text modified on 2/16/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 02/12/2010)

02/12/2010 48 MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to compel (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1-5)(Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 02/12/2010)

02/12/2010 49 NOTICE of Motion by Michael G. Salemi for presentment of motion to compel 48 before Honorable Nan R. Nolan on 2/17/2010 at 10:00 AM. (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 02/12/2010)

02/16/2010 50 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 2/16/2010 and continued to 3/2/2010 at 09:30 a.m. Defendant's motion to compel 48 shall briefed as follows: response to be filed by 02/22/10 - reply brief is due by 02/24/10. Defendant is given leave to file a motion for assertion




of privilege regarding objections raised during deposition.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 02/16/2010)

02/22/2010 51 MOTION by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for extension of time to Respond to Motion to Compel (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 02/22/2010)

02/22/2010 52 Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond to Motion to Compel NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of extension of time 51 , motion to compel 48 before Honorable Nan R. Nolan on 3/2/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 02/22/2010)

02/23/2010 53 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:In light if Plaintiff's MOTION for extension of time to Respond to Motion to Compel 51 , status hearing and motion will be heard on 03/03/10 at 10:00 a.m. No appearance is required on 03/02/10.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 02/23/2010)

02/26/2010 (Court only) ***Deadlines terminated. (lxs, ) (Entered: 02/26/2010)

02/26/2010 54 MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to compel production of privilege log under Rule 26(b)(5) (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1-3)(Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2010)

02/26/2010 55 NOTICE of Motion by Michael G. Salemi for presentment of motion to compel 54 before Honorable Nan R. Nolan on 3/3/2010 at 10:00 AM. (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2010)

03/02/2010 56 TranscriptOfProceedingsBeforeJudgeGuzman12/16/10 by Drew W. Peterson (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 03/02/2010)

03/02/2010 57 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re other 56 ofFilingTranscriptOfProcedingBeforeJudgeGuzman12/16/09 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 03/02/2010)

03/03/2010 58 RESPONSE by Drew W. Petersonin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to compel 48 ResponseToMotionToCompel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit#1(USATodayArticle))(Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 03/03/2010)

03/03/2010 59 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re response in opposition to motion 58 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 03/03/2010)

03/03/2010 61 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Hearing held on




Defendants Motion to Compel 48 and Motion to Compel Production of a Privilege Log 54 . Defendants counsel will provide Plaintiffs counsel with a letter setting forth the information it needs to assess Plaintiffs assets and liabilities as stated in open court. The parties are urged to work together on a mutually-agreeable resolution of these motions. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended response to the motion to compel 48 by March 5, 2010. Further briefing is stayed until the next status hearing, which is set for March 10, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

03/08/2010 60 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing set for 3/10/2010 at 09:30 AM.Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

03/08/2010 62 RESPONSE by Drew W. Petersonin Opposition to MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to compel 48 AmendedResponseE-FILED3/8/10 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit#1USATodayArticle)(Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

03/08/2010 63 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re response in opposition to motion 62 NoticeofFilingAmendedResponseE-FILED3/8/10 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

03/10/2010 64 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held on 3/10/2010 at 9:30 a.m. and continued to 3/10/2010 at 10:30 AM.Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 03/10/2010)

03/10/2010 65 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held on 3/10/2010. Status hearing set for 3/17/2010 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 03/11/2010)

03/10/2010 66 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 3/10/2010 and continued to 3/17/2010 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/11/2010)


03/17/2010 68 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 3/17/2010 and continued to 3/25/2010 at 09:30 a.m. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/17/2010)

03/25/2010 69 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:At counsel's




request, status hearing set for 3/25/2010 is stricken and reset for 3/31/2010 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/26/2010)


03/31/2010 71 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 3/31/2010 and continued to 4/7/2010 at 09:00 AM. Parties reported status of discovery production and confidentiality agreement. Parties are to continue to meet and confer.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/31/2010)

04/07/2010 72 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing held on 4/7/2010. Defendant to answer complaint on or before 4/21/10. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to be filed on or before 5/5/2010. Response due 5/19/10. Reply due 6/2/10. Ruling to be by mail. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 04/07/2010)

04/07/2010 73 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 4/7/2010 and continued to 4/12/2010 at 08:45 AM. Stipulate Protective Order to follow.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/07/2010)

04/07/2010 74 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Order Signed by the Honorable Nan R. Nolan on 4/7/2010.Mailed notice(lxs, ) (Entered: 04/08/2010)

04/14/2010 75 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 4/14/2010 and continued to 4/15/2010 at 03:30 PM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/15/2010)

04/15/2010 76 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 4/15/2010 and continued to 4/21/2010 at 04:00 PM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/19/2010)

04/16/2010 77 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 4/16/2010.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/19/2010)

04/20/2010 78 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:On the court's own motion, status hearing set for 4/21/2010 is stricken and reset for 4/22/2010 at 04:00 PM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/20/2010)




04/21/2010 79 ANSWER and Affirmative defenses to Complaint by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA(Salemi, Michael) (Text Modified on 4/22/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 04/21/2010)

04/22/2010 80 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Status hearing set for 4/22/2010 is stricken and reset for 4/23/2010 at 11:00 AM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/22/2010)

04/23/2010 (Court only) Judge Honorable Nan R. Nolan no longer referred to the case., ***Set/Clear Flags (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/23/2010 81 MINUTE entry before Honorable Nan R. Nolan:Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 4/23/2010. For the reasons stated in open court, Defendant's Motion to Compel 48 54 are withdrawn. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been concluded, the referral is closed and the case is returned to the assigned judge.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/23/2010)

04/29/2010 82 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Pursuant to Memorandum Opinion and Order dated 4/29/10, the Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss [doc. no. 27] and dismisses plaintiffs complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff may amend his complaint in accordance with this Order on or before May 6, 2010. If he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this suit with prejudice. Defendant may file a response to any amended complaint on or before May 10, 2010. The Court strikes the summary judgment briefing schedule set forth in the April 7, 2010 order [doc. no. 72]. Summary judgment motions, if any, must be filed by June 1, 2010. If only one party moves for summary judgment, response is due June 15, 2010 and reply is due June 29, 2010. Crossmotions will be briefed as set forth in the Court's standing order. Ruling on any summary judgment motions will be by mail. SO ORDERED. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 04/29/2010)

04/29/2010 83 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 4/29/2010. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 04/29/2010)

05/06/2010 84 AMENDED Complaint (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 05/06/2010)

05/06/2010 85 AMENDED CCOMPLAINT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A to Amended complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B to Amended Complaint, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C to Amended Complaint, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D to Amended Complaint, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E to Amended Complaint, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F to Amended




Complaint, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G to Amended Complaint)(Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 05/06/2010)

05/06/2010 86 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re amended document, 85 Amended Complaint (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 05/06/2010)

05/10/2010 87 MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to dismiss Amended Complaint (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

05/10/2010 88 NOTICE of Motion by Michael G. Salemi for presentment of motion to dismiss 87 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 5/13/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

05/10/2010 89 MEMORANDUM by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA in support of motion to dismiss 87 Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1-2)(Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 05/10/2010)

05/12/2010 90 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Notice of motion hearing stricken. Set deadlines as to motion by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to dismiss Amended Complaint 87 : Response due by 6/2/2010. Reply due by 6/16/2010. Ruling to be by mail. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 05/12/2010)

05/20/2010 91 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman:Summary judgment briefing schedule set in minute entry dated 4/29/10 [doc. 82] is stricken. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 05/20/2010)

06/01/2010 92 MOTION by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for extension of time to file response/reply MotintoExtendTimetoFileResponsetoMotiontoDismiss (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

06/01/2010 93 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re MOTION by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for extension of time to file response/reply MotintoExtendTimetoFileResponsetoMotiontoDismiss 92 NoticeofFilingMotintoExtendTime (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

06/01/2010 94 NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of motion to dismiss 87 , motion for extension of time to file response/reply 92 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 6/3/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

06/02/2010 95 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Notice of motion set for 6/3/10 is stricken. Motion by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for extension of time to file response to motion to




dismiss 92 is granted. Response due by 6/4/2010. Reply due by 6/18/2010. Ruling to be by mail. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 06/02/2010)

06/08/2010 96 MOTION by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for extension of time to file response/reply and for Leave (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/08/2010)

06/08/2010 97 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re MOTION by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for extension of time to file response/reply and for Leave 96 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/08/2010)

06/08/2010 98 NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 96 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 6/10/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/08/2010)

06/09/2010 99 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Notice of motion set for 6/10/10 is stricken. Motion by Plaintiff for extension of time to file response/reply to motion by Defendant to dismiss Amended Complaint 87 96 is granted. Response due by 6/11/2010. Reply due by 6/28/2010. Ruling to be by mail. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 06/09/2010)

06/11/2010 100 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's motion to dismiss amended complaint 87 (Maksym, Walter) Modified on 6/15/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 06/11/2010)

06/11/2010 101 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re response to defendant's motion to dismiss Amended Complaint 100 (Maksym, Walter) Modified on 6/15/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 06/11/2010)

06/14/2010 102 MEMORANDUM by Drew W. Peterson in Opposition to motion to dismiss 87 Amended Complaint (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

06/14/2010 103 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Drew W. Peterson of Certain Counts E-FILED 6/14/10 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/14/2010)

06/21/2010 104 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman:Pursuant to Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal of certain counts [doc. 103], it is hereby ordered that the Pendant State Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A).Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 06/21/2010)




06/22/2010 105 MOTION by Plaintiff for leave to file second amended complaint (Maksym, Walter) Modified on 6/23/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 06/22/2010)

06/22/2010 106 DOCUMENT entered in error (Maksym, Walter) Modified on 6/24/2010 (vmj, ). (Entered: 06/23/2010)

06/22/2010 (Court only) ***Motions terminated: MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to dismiss Amended Complaint 87 (vmj, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/23/2010 107 MotionforLeavetoFileSecondAmendedComplaint NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of motion to amend/correct 106 , motion to amend/correct 105 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 6/24/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

06/23/2010 108 Second AMENDED complaint by Drew W. Peterson against Drew W. Peterson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit1)(Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

06/23/2010 109 Second AMENDED complaint by Drew W. Peterson against Drew W. Peterson (Tendered) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit1, # 2 Exhibit ExhibitA, # 3 Exhibit ExhibitB, # 4 Exhibit ExhibitC, # 5 Exhibit ExhibitD, # 6 Exhibit ExhibitE, # 7 Exhibit ExhibitF, # 8 Exhibit ExhibitG)(Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

06/23/2010 110 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Reset hearing as to motion by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint 105 : Motion Hearing set for 6/24/2010 at 08:30 AM. NOTE TIME CHANGE ONLY. Document numbers 108 and 109 are stricken as filed in error. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

06/23/2010 111 AMENDED NOTICE of Motion by Walter Peter Maksym, Jr for presentment of motion to amend/correct 105 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 6/24/2010 at 08:30 AM. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/23/2010)

06/23/2010 113 NOTICE of Correction regarding 106 (vmj, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/24/2010 112 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on 6/24/2010. Motion by Plaintiff for leave to file second amended complaint 105 is denied. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 06/24/2010)




06/28/2010 114 REPLY by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to memorandum in opposition to motion 102 (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1-3)(Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 06/28/2010)

09/08/2010 115 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Plaintiff's amended complaint does not cure the defects noted by the Court in its April 29, 2010 Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing plaintiff's initial complaint. Therefore, the Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint [doc. no. 87] and terminates this case. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,) (Entered: 09/09/2010)

09/14/2010 116 MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA for judgment to be Set Forth on a Separate Document and Entered Pursuant to Rule 58(d) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 09/14/2010)

09/14/2010 117 NOTICE of Motion by Michael G. Salemi for presentment of motion for judgment 116 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 9/28/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 09/14/2010)

09/17/2010 118 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Defendant's motion to enter final judgment [doc. no. 116] is granted. The Court enters judgment in favor of defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, and against plaintiff, Drew W. Peterson, on all of the remaining claims in this suit. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 09/17/2010)

09/17/2010 119 ENTERED JUDGMENT Signed by Deputy Clerk on 9/17/2010. Mailed notice (cjg, ) (Entered: 09/17/2010)

09/29/2010 120 NOTICE of appeal by Drew W. Peterson regarding orders 82 , 119 , 118 , 115 , 112 , 83 Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0752-5268930. (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 09/29/2010)

09/30/2010 121 NOTICE of Appeal Due letter sent to counsel of record. (gel, ) (Entered: 09/30/2010)




Drew Peterson v. JPMorganChase case 1:09-cv-06746 APPEALED - Justice Café -

Documents

district court case

united states district

district courts

district court clerks

court of appeals pursuant

united states court

judgment order

date of order