Firestone Financial Corp. v. JHM Equipment Leasing Company et al

Filing 77

Memorandum Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Miltion I. Shadur on 6/11/2014: Defendant Meyer's motion 62 for leave to file additional affirmative defenses and counterclaims is denied. Mailed notice (gds) Modified on 6/11/2014 (gds).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
FIRESTONE FINANCIAL CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
J H M EQUIPMENT LEASING COMPANY,
J H MEYER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
DOLPHIN LAUNDRY SERVICES, INC.,
and JOHN MEYER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13 C 7241

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Throughout the eight months since this action was brought against John Meyer ("Meyer")
and his several controlled corporations by lender Firestone Financial Corp. ("Firestone"), Meyer
has been seeking to stave off what appeared from the outset to be the inevitable loss of his and
their business enterprise that engages in leasing commercial laundry equipment (which
equipment had been pledged as collateral for Firestone's several loans) and in related activity. In
the meantime this Court has given Meyer more leeway than was probably due him, based on his
repeated statements that he was in the process of obtaining counsel to represent him. 1
Now, fully five months after Meyer filed his Answer, Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaims to Firestone's Complaint, Meyer has sought to take the offensive by seeking leave
to file additional affirmative defenses and counterclaims. That extended delay without
proffering any even half-persuasive justification, compounded by inconsistencies between the
factual and legal positions originally taken by Meyer and what he now seeks to assert, negates
1

Meanwhile a default judgment has been entered against each of Meyer's corporate
co-defendants.

the existence of both good cause and excusable neglect, which are set as standards by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1). At least as importantly, both those inconsistencies and the demonstrably
false assertions advanced by Meyer in attempted support of his current motion (see pages 2 and 3
of Firestone's just-filed Response to that motion) conclusively show that Meyer has failed
miserably to satisfy the "plausibility" standard established by the Trombly-Iqbal canon.
This Court need not provide chapter and verse as to the multiple reasons that compel
denial of Meyer's motion -- Firestone's Response has effectively driven multiple nails into the
coffin of Meyer's proposed pleading. In short, Meyer's motion (Dkt.62) must be and is denied
out of hand. Meyer is free to devote his entire attention to responding to Firestone's motion for
summary judgment, required to be filed on or before June 30, 2014.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: June 11, 2014

-2-