Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Abell et al
MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/15/2014. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE
POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT
DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2003,
MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL INC.
ALITA A. ABELL, CAPITAL ONE BANK
(USA), N.A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
TO CAPITAL ONE BANK, CRESANDRA
Case No. 12 C 2607
This action, which is extraordinarily long in the tooth in terms of the mortgage
foreclosure lawsuits that have become a significant component of this District Court's caseload,
has somehow fallen between the cracks -- its pendency came to light again during this Court's
recent case-by-case review of pending actions assigned to its calendar. Under the circumstances
a brief review of the bidding may be appropriate.
One of the individual co-defendants, mortgagor Alita Abell ("Abell"), originally appeared
through counsel. But after this Court had issued a brief July 22, 2012 memorandum order
striking counsel's Answer and Affirmative Defenses, while granting leave to file a corrected
version, nothing further was ever filed on Abell's behalf. So on September 4, 2012 the lawyer
for plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsche Bank") filed a motion for
summary judgment coupled with a motion for the appointment of a special commissioner.
Because efforts were then being made by the mortgagor to obtain a loan modification or
perhaps to make other arrangements that would avoid foreclosure, the matter was continued from
time to time until March 18, 2013, when Deutsche Bank's counsel withdrew its pending motions
without prejudice to possible refiling. Further status hearings were then scheduled and held, but
with no resolution of the matter having taken place during a several month period, Deutsche
Bank refiled similar motions in mid-August 2013. Because Abell's counsel did not appear when
that second summary judgment motion was noticed up for hearing, the matter was continued
through three more status hearings until November 13, 2013, at which point this Court indicated
that summary judgment would be forthcoming -- but at that point the case dropped off the radar
With apologizes for the delay, this Court finds that Deutsche Bank's submissions have
shown that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that movant Deutsche Bank is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, so that the entry of summary judgment is in order (see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). Accordingly Deutsche Bank's counsel is directed to deliver to this Court's
chambers, for signature by this Court, two up-to-date order forms, one appointing Judicial Sales
Corporation as special commissioner and the other setting out a judgment of foreclosure. This
Court will promptly issue those appropriate orders.
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: January 15, 2014
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?