Cooley et al v. Ameriquest Mortgage, Inc. et al
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 7/24/2015: Ameriquest is to submit a sur-reply as directed in this Memorandum Opinion and Opinion. Ameriquest's sur-reply may not exceed fifteen pages and shall be filed on or by July 31, 2015. Mailed notice(mad, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE: AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO.
MORTGAGE LENDING PRACTICES
LITIGATION
MDL No. 1715
Lead Case No. 05 C 7097
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Cooley v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co.
(Indiv. Case No. 07 C 7182)
Centralized before the
Hon. Marvin E. Aspen
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:
On May 12, 2015, Plaintiff Wilbert Cooley filed a motion before us seeking a suggestion
of remand to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”). (Mot. (Dkt. No. 69) at 5.)
In the alternative, Cooley asks that we grant him leave to amend his complaint to dismiss all of
his federal claims and then decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, leaving him free to
pursue his state claims in Alabama state court. 1 (Id.; Reply at 7–8, 12–14.)
Cooley did not fully articulate his request to amend to voluntarily dismiss all federal
claims until his reply brief. As a result, we order Ameriquest to submit a sur-reply addressing
this argument. In doing so, Ameriquest shall address the propriety of Cooley’s proposed
amendment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, as well as the propriety of our continued
exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims if we allow the amendment. See
Groce v. Eli Lilly & Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999); Leister v. Dovetail, Inc., 546 F.3d
1
At times Cooley suggests that we could transfer his case back to a federal court in Alabama, but
we do not have the authority to grant that relief. We can suggest to the Panel, as Cooley
requested, that such action would be appropriate. Or, as requested in the alternative, we could
allow Cooley to voluntarily dismiss his federal claims, leaving only his state claims for
adjudication, and then decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. In the absence of
supplemental jurisdiction, however, those claims could be heard in Alabama state court only.
1
875, 882 (7th Cir. 2008); Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 404 (7th Cir. 2007). Ameriquest
shall discuss the status of discovery, any potential prejudice to the parties, whether dismissal
(if allowed) should be with or without prejudice, and any statute of limitations problems that
might face Cooley if we grant his request and he attempts to promptly refile his state claims in
Alabama state court. Ameriquest shall also address whether Cooley’s ex-wife (still a named
plaintiff) must consent to his requests or whether we can rule on the motion without her input.
Ameriquest’s sur-reply may not exceed fifteen pages and shall be filed on or by
July 31, 2015. It is so ordered.
______________________________
Marvin E. Aspen
United States District Judge
Dated: July 24, 2015
Chicago, Illinois
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?