• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THENORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISIONDREW W. PETERSON, ))Plaintiff, ))v. ) Case No. 1:09-cv-06746)JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, )d/b/a “CHASE”, ))Defendant. )COMPLAINTNOW COMES the Plaintiff, DREW W. PETERSON (“PETERSON”), byhis attorney, WALTER P. MAKSYM, JR., and complains of theDefendant, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA d/b/a “CHASE” (“CHASE”),alleging as follows:Nature of the Action1. PETERSON brings these actions against the CHASE torecover damages, declaratory, equitable, and other relief underRegulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA” or the “Act”),15 U.S.C. § 1647, 12 C.F.R. § 226.5b (“Regulation ’Z’”), andIllinois statutory and common law.Jurisdiction and Venue2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over thiscase under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). On information and belief,the aggregate of these claims exceeds the sum or value of$75,000.00. The Court also has federal question subject matterjurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this action arises inpart under Regulation Z of TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1647, 12 C.F.R. §226.5b. The Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdictionover the pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Case 1:09-cv-06746 Document 1 Filed 10/26/2009 Page 1 of 33
 
 
2
 
Venue3. That venue in the Northern District of Illinois,Eastern Division is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) inthat PETERSON’S claims arose within this District and Divisionout of a wrongful conduct herein complained of that occurred inthe County of Will, State of Illinois, as is hereinafter moreparticularly alleged he is a citizen of and resides in WillCounty, Illinois and the CHASE does business and maintainsoffices within this District.4. On information and belief, CHASE is a national bankingassociation whose main offices are in Ohio, and is considered acitizen of Ohio for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1348 in
Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt
, 546 U.S. 303(2006
).
5. Venue is also proper before this Court under 28 U.S.C.§ 1391(b)(2) as a substantial part of the events, circumstances,and omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in thisDistrict. CHASE’S conducts significant lending and lending-related business in this District. Venue is also proper in thisDistrict under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).Parties6. That at all timesrelevant PETERSON was an active or retired Village ofBolingbrook Illinois sworn police officer, having attained therank of Sergeant, who maintained his primary residence at 6Pheasant Chase Court, Bolingbrook, County of Will, State ofIllinois (the “subject property” - “residence”). 7.That, on informationand belief, at all times relevant, CHASE was a national bankingassociation with its main office located at 1111 Polaris
Case 1:09-cv-06746 Document 1 Filed 10/26/2009 Page 2 of 33
 
 
3
 
Parkway, Columbus, Ohio, and a leading global financial servicesfirm with assets of approximately two (2) trillion dollars andoperations in more than sixty (60) countries. CHASE is a leaderin investment banking, financial services for consumers, smallbusiness and commercial banking, financial transactionprocessing, asset management, and private equity. A component ofthe Dow Jones Industrial Average, CHASE (NYSE: JPM) serves millions of consumers in the United States and many of the world’s largest corporate, institutional and government clientsunder its JPMorgan and CHASE brands.Nature of the Claim 8. This case concerns CHASE’S illegal suspension andconsequent reduction of credit limit on PETERSON’S home equityline of credit (“HELOC”) by breaching its contractual promisesto PETERSON as an HELOC account holder and borrower, by freezinghis HELOC without first reasonably having a sound factual basistherefore in violation of Federal and State law.9. PETERSON has instituted this cause so that this Court may,
inter alia
, determine, declare, adjudge, and decree:(a) wheather PETERSON’S HELOC agreement terms imposedcontractual obligations on CHASE to have a sound factual basisbefore lowering his HELOC limits due to a supposed significantand factually sound “material change” in his “financialcondition”;(b) wheather CHASE’S suspension a total reduction of thePETERSON’S credit limit on his HELOC was unfair and unlawful;(c) wheather CHASE gave lawful and fair notice to PETERSONthat his HELOC was being lawfully suspended and reduced based onpre-textual or specific factually sound reason of an actual“material change” in his “financial condition”;(d) wheather CHASE’S conduct constitutes immoral,
Case 1:09-cv-06746 Document 1 Filed 10/26/2009 Page 3 of 33
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...