Drew Peterson v. JPMorganChase Case 1:09-cv-06746 APPEALED - Justice Café - Http://petersonstory - Wordpress.com

Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
1:09-cv-06746Document
Document#:
#:122
120 Filed:
Filed:09/30/10
09/29/10Page
Page11of
of29
2 PageID
PageID#:960
#:963
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: wmaksym@gmail.com
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:
#:122
120 Filed:
Filed:09/30/10
09/29/10Page
Page22of
of29
2 PageID
PageID#:961
#:964
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
_/s/ Walter P. Maksym, Jr.______________

Walter P. Maksym, Jr.
2
Case: 1:09-cv-06746 Document #: 122 Filed: 09/30/10 Page 3 of 29 PageID #:965
SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INFORMATION SHEET

Include the names of all plaintiffs (petitioners) and defendants (respondents) who are parties
to 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.
2056 North Lincoln Ave. 330 North Wabash Ave
Address Chicago, IL 60614-4525 Address 22nd Floor
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 OF
THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 3(A). Rev 04/01
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
82 Filed: 04/29/10
09/30/10 Page 1
4 of 1
29PageID
PageID#:643
#:966
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.0.3
Eastern Division
Drew W. Peterson
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:09−cv−06746
Honorable Ronald A. Guzman
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
Defendant.
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 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, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
83 Filed: 04/29/10
09/30/10 Page 1
5 of 6
29PageID
PageID#:644
#:967
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR 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
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
83 Filed: 04/29/10
09/30/10 Page 2
6 of 6
29PageID
PageID#:645
#:968
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
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
83 Filed: 04/29/10
09/30/10 Page 3
7 of 6
29PageID
PageID#:646
#:969
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
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
83 Filed: 04/29/10
09/30/10 Page 4
8 of 6
29PageID
PageID#:647
#:970
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
1
Because 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
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
83 Filed: 04/29/10
09/30/10 Page 5
9 of 6
29PageID
PageID#:648
#:971
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
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
1:09-cv-06746
Document
Document
#:#:
122
83 Filed:
Filed:09/30/10
04/29/10Page
Page10
6 of
of629
PageID
PageID
#:649
#:972
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. GUZMAN
United States District Judge
6
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
112Filed:
Filed:09/30/10
06/24/10Page
Page11
1 of 1
29PageID
PageID#:922
#:973

Eastern Division
Drew W. Peterson
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:09−cv−06746
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, June 24, 2010:
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, )
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
115Filed:
Filed:09/30/10
09/08/10Page
Page12
1 of 1
29PageID
PageID#:950
#:974

Eastern Division
Drew W. Peterson
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:09−cv−06746
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, September 8, 2010:
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,)
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
118Filed:
Filed:09/30/10
09/17/10Page
Page13
1 of 1
29PageID
PageID#:958
#:975

Eastern Division
Drew W. Peterson
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:09−cv−06746
Defendant.
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, September 17, 2010:
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, )
Case:
Case:1:09-cv-06746
Document#:#:122
119Filed:
AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case
Filed:09/30/10
09/17/10Page
Page14
1 of 1
29PageID
PageID#:959
#:976
United States District Court

Northern 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 been
tried and the jury rendered its verdict.
O Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues
have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 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.
Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court
Date: 9/17/2010 ________________________________

/s/ Carole Gainer, Deputy Clerk
CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.1.1 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois Page 1 of 15
APPEAL, NOLAN, PROTO, TERMED
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
Peterson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Date Filed: 10/26/2009

Assigned to: Honorable Ronald A. Guzman Date Terminated: 09/08/2010
Demand: $75,000 Jury Demand: Both
Cause: 15:1640 Truth in Lending 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
(312) 218-4475
Email: wmaksym@gmail.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA represented by LeAnn Pedersen Pope
doing business as Burke, Warren, MacKay &
CHASE Serritella, P.C.
330 North Wabash Avenue
22nd Floor
(312) 840-7000
Email: lpope@burkelaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Victoria R. Collado
Burke, Warren, MacKay &
Serritella, PC
https://ecf.ilnd.circ7.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?226440983840608-L_674_0-1 9/30/2010
330 North Wabash

22nd Floor
(312) 840-7048
Email: vcollado@burkelaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael G. Salemi
Burke, Warren, MacKay &
Serritella, PC
330 North Wabash
22nd Floor
(312) 840-7112
Fax: (312) 840-7900
Email: msalemi@burkelaw.com
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)
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)
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
12/11/2009 27 MOTION by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint (Salemi, Michael) (Entered: 12/11/2009)
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)
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,

12/23/2009 35 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re other 34
NoticeofFilingPlaintiff'sRule26(A)(1)Disclosures (Maksym,
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,
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
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)
motion for extension of time to complete discovery 40 before
Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 2/2/2010 at 09:30 AM. (Salemi,
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)
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)
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)
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
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to compel 48
ResponseToMotionToCompel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Exhibit#1(USATodayArticle))(Maksym, Walter) (Entered:
03/03/2010)
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)
hearing set for 3/10/2010 at 09:30 AM.Mailed notice (cjg, )
(Entered: 03/08/2010)
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to compel 48
AmendedResponseE-FILED3/8/10 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Exhibit#1USATodayArticle)(Maksym, Walter) (Entered:
03/08/2010)
motion 62 NoticeofFilingAmendedResponseE-FILED3/8/10
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)
hearing held on 3/10/2010. Status hearing set for 3/17/2010 at
09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/11/2010)
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)
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)
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)
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)
03:30 PM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
04:00 PM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
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)
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)

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)
motion to dismiss 87 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on
05/10/2010 89 MEMORANDUM by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA in support of
motion to dismiss 87 Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1
(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)
file response/reply
MotintoExtendTimetoFileResponsetoMotiontoDismiss (Maksym,
Peterson for extension of time to file response/reply
MotintoExtendTimetoFileResponsetoMotiontoDismiss 92
NoticeofFilingMotintoExtendTime (Maksym, Walter) (Entered:
06/01/2010)
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)
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)
file response/reply and for Leave (Maksym, Walter) (Entered:
06/08/2010)
Peterson for extension of time to file response/reply and for Leave
96 (Maksym, Walter) (Entered: 06/08/2010)
of motion for extension of time to file response/reply 96 before
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
06/23/2010 108 Second AMENDED complaint by Drew W. Peterson against
Drew W. Peterson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit1)(Maksym,
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
(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,
motion for judgment 116 before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on
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 - Http://petersonstory - Wordpress.com

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drew Peterson v. JPMorganChase Case 1:09-cv-06746 APPEALED - Justice Café - Http://petersonstory - Wordpress.com

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case:

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

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

LeAnn Pedersen Pope

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

SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS INFORMATION SHEET

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DOCKET NUMBER: 09cv6746

PLAINTIFF (Petitioner) v. DEFENDANT (Respondent)

(Use separate sheet for additional counsel)

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

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#):

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Pursuant to Memorandum

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

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

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

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

holding, Schulken does not support plaintiff’s argument.

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

on the TILA suspension claim, the Court dismisses it.

VI. (See Compl. ¶¶ 58, 67.)1

Accordingly, they are also dismissed.

motions will be by mail.

April 29, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Plaintiff's amended

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Defendant's motion to enter

United States District Court

Peterson JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: 9/17/2010 ________________________________

APPEAL, NOLAN, PROTO, TERMED

United States District Court

Peterson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Date Filed: 10/26/2009

330 North Wabash

Date Filed # Docket Text

10/29/2009 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: The

by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson to expedite and Advance on

11/18/2009 25 NOTICE by Drew W. Peterson re response in opposition to

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

closed by 3/5/2010. Motion by Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson for

of privilege regarding objections raised during deposition.Mailed

Defendants Motion to Compel 48 and Motion to Compel

04/21/2010 79 ANSWER and Affirmative defenses to Complaint by JPMorgan

Complaint, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G to Amended Complaint)

dismiss 92 is granted. Response due by 6/4/2010. Reply due by

06/28/2010 114 REPLY by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank NA to

You might also like