Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Chicago Title Insurance Company et al

Filing 604

MOTION by Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for judgment Unopposed (Tonkinson, Stuart)

Download PDF
Case: 1:12-cv-05198 Document #: 604 Filed: 02/18/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:17792 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION FEDERAL DEPOSIT INS. CORP. AS RECEIVER FOR FOUNDERS BANK, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO TITLE INS. CO., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 12-cv-5198 Honorable Judge Andrea R. Wood FDIC-R’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED JUDGMENT Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Founders Bank (“FDIC-R”) moves for entry of an amended judgment in accordance with the mandate issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Defendants Chicago Title Insurance Company and Chicago Title & Trust Co. (collectively, “Chicago Title”) do not oppose the relief requested herein. 1. On July 16, 2018, this Court entered its initial judgment in this matter for FDIC-R against Chicago Title in the amount of $1.45 million. [D.E. 410.] On March 10, 2020, this Court entered an amended judgment for FDIC-R against Chicago Title in the amount of $945,643.56. [D.E. 524.] 2. On August 31, 2021, the Seventh Circuit issued its opinion remanding the case to this Court to reverse the $500,000 reduction reflected in the amended judgment. [D.E. 603.] Pursuant to that ruling, FDIC-R is entitled to an amended judgment in the principal amount of $1,445,643.56. On January 28, 2022, the Seventh Circuit ruled that FDIC-R was entitled to postjudgment interest to run from the date of the original judgment, July 16, 2018. [D.E. 602.] Mandate issued that same day. [D.E. 599.] Case: 1:12-cv-05198 Document #: 604 Filed: 02/18/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:17793 3. FDIC-R has prepared the attached proposed judgment to reflect the Seventh Circuit’s rulings. A word copy of the proposed judgment will also be provided. For the foregoing reasons, FDIC-R respectfully requests that the Court enter the attached proposed judgment. Respectfully submitted, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR FOUNDERS BANK LOCAL COUNSEL /s/ J.S. Tonkinson Stuart Tonkinson 3501 Fairfax Avenue Arlington VA 22226 Phone: 214-673-7549 jtonkinson@fdic.gov Monica Maria Tynan (ARDC # 6210307) 300 South Riverside Drive, Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: (312) 382-6555 mtynan@fdic.gov John Church 3501 Fairfax Drive Arlington VA 22226 Phone: 703-516-1394 jchurch@fdic.gov FDIC-R’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED JUDGMENT– Page 2 Case: 1:12-cv-05198 Document #: 604 Filed: 02/18/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:17794 EXHIBIT 1 Case: 1:12-cv-05198 Document #: 604 Filed: 02/18/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:17795 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Plaintiff(s), Case No. 1:12-cv-05198 Judge Andrea R. Wood v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, Chicago Title And Trust Company, Defendant(s). JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box): and against defendant(s) Chicago Title Insurance Company and Chicago Title And Trust Company in the amount of $1,445,643.56, which includes pre–judgment interest. does not include pre–judgment interest. Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from July 16, 2018. Plaintiff(s) has fully recovered its costs of court in the amount of $53,270.69 from defendant(s). . in favor of defendant(s)and against plaintiff(s) Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s). other: This action was (check one): tried by a jury with Judge Andrea R. Wood presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. tried by Judge Andrea R. Wood without a jury and the above decision was reached. decided by Judge Andrea R. Wood on a motion Date: __/__/2022 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court /s/David Lynn, Deputy Clerk

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?