Peterson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA

Filing 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)

Download PDF
Peterson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Doc. 116 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DREW W. PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant. ) ) ) Case No. 09 C 06746 ) ) Hon. Judge Ronald A. Guzman ) ) Hon. Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan ) ) JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.'S MOTION TO HAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF DREW W. PETERSON SET FORTH ON A SEPARATE DOCUMENT AND ENTERED Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d), respectfully moves this Court to direct the Clerk to set forth as a separate document a judgment in Chase's favor and against Plaintiff Drew W. Peterson ("Peterson") and to enter that judgment. 1. In support of its Motion, Chase states as follows: On May 10, 2010, Chase moved to dismiss Peterson's First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). (Docket Nos. 87-89.) 2. On September 8, 2010, the Court entered a minute order granting Chase's motion to dismiss Peterson's First Amended Complaint. That minute order provided, in relevant part: Plaintiffs 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. (Docket No. 115.) 3. Under Rule 58(a)(1), every judgment must be set forth on a separate document. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a)(1); see also Otis v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1159, 1163 (7th Cir. 1994) ("[E]very case must end with a formal judgment on a separate ... saying who has won and what relief has been awarded .... "). 4. self-contained document, However, as of the filing of this Motion, the Clerk has not entered a judgment in Chase's favor and against Peterson. 5. Rule 58(d) permits a party to request that a judgment be set forth on a separate document as required under Rule 58(a)(1). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d). Accordingly, Chase has prepared a proposed judgment to be entered in this case, granting judgment in Chase's favor and awarding Chase its costs. (Exhibit A.) WHEREFORE, Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. respectfully requests that this Court enter an order directing the Clerk (i) to set forth in a separate document a judgment in favor of Chase and against Peterson and awarding Chase its costs in substantially the same form as the proposed judgment attached as Exhibit A; (ii) to enter that judgment; and (iii) for such further and different relief as this Court deems necessary and just. Date: September 14, 2010 Respectfully submitted, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. By: IslMichael G. Salemi One of its attorneys LeAnn Pedersen Pope (6186058) Victoria R. Collado (6204015) Michael G. Salemi (6279741) Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, P.C. 330 North Wabash Avenue, 22nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60611-3607 Telephone: (312) 840-7000 Facsimile: (312) 840-7900 Email: 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on September 14, 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically using the Court's Electronic Case Filing System. A Notice of Electronic Filing will be sent by electronic mail to all counsel of record by operation of the Court's Electronic Filing System. By: IslMichael G. Salemi 747566v2

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?