Citibank, N.A. v. Interface Protein Technology Inc. et al
MOTION by Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. for judgment - Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment Solely Against Defendant Interface Protein Technology Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Consent Judgment)(Kelly, Cheryl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CITIBANK, N.A., a national banking association,
Case No. i : i 7-cv-00207
INTERFACE PROTEIN TECHNOLOGY INC., an
CHARLES XIAO QING HAN (also known as
CHARLES X. HAN, CHARLES HAN, CHARLES
XIAO-QING HAN, CHARLES XIAOQING HAN,
XIAO QING CHARLES HAN, XIAOQJNG HAN,
XIAO-QING HAN and HAN XIAOQING), an
MINDY MINGXIA LIU (also known as MINDY M.
LIU, MINGXIA MINDY LIU, MINGXIA LIU, and
M1NG-XIA LIU), an individual,
JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND SOLELY AGAINST
DEFENDANT INTERFACE PROTEIN TECHNOLOGY INC.
Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. and Defendant Interface Protein Technology Inc. jointly move
for the entry of a Consent Judgment, and in support thereof state as follows:
On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Complaint (the "Complaint") including a
Count for breach of Note and Loan Agreement against Defendant Interface Protein Technology
Inc., and a Count for breach of Guarantee against each of Defendant Charles Xiao Qing Han and
Mindy Mingxia Liu relating to the Loan more particularly described in the Complaint.
Defendants filed their Answer and Defenses to the Complaint on March 7. 2017
reflecting little at issue between the parties respecting the Loan described in the Complaint.
On July 5, 2017, during a status hearing before the Court, counsel for Defendants
informed Plaintiff and the Court that Defendants wish to resolve this proceeding and their
respective obligations on the Loan and Loan Documents described in the Complaint by entry of a
On July 16, 2017 (the "Petition Date"), Defendants Charles Xiaoqing Han
("Han") and Mindy Mingxia Liu ("Liu") filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of
Title i i of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"), in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) (the "Bankruptcy Court"), commencing a
case designated as In re Charles Xiaoqing Han and Mindy Mingxia Liu, Case No. 17-21154 (the
In accordance with the provisions of i i U.S.C. 362(a), any and all further
proceedings in this action are stayed with respect to Mr. Han and Ms. Liu.
The parties have agreed to the entry of a Consent Judgment with respect to the
Loan, the Note and the Loan Agreement described in the Complaint in favor of Plaintiff and
solely against Defendant Interface Protein Technology Inc. in the form attached hereto as
A separate copy of this Consent Judgment is being submitted to the Court
concurrently with the filing of this Motion at Proposed_Order_Blakey@ilnd.uscourts.gov in
compliance with the Court's standing order.
For these reasons, Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. and Defendant Interface Protein Technology
respectfully request that this Court enter the proposed Consent Judgment attached hereto as
Dated: August 3, 2017
Consented to and prepared by:
Seen and agreed to:
On behalf of Plaintiff, Citibank, N.A.
On behalf of Defendant Interface Protein
By: /s/CherylA. Kelly
By: /s/ Michael C. Whitticar
Michael C. Whitticar
NOVA IP Law, PLLC
7001 Heritage Village Plaza, Suite 205
Gainesville, VA 20155
E-Mail : email@example.com;
Todd A. Rowden (ARDC #620 1929)
Cheryl A. Kelly (ARDC #6203 101)
Audrey D. Mense (ARDC #63 02524)
Thompson Coburn LLP
55 E. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on August 3, 20 1 7, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment Solely Against Defendant Interface Protein
Technology Inc. was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served by operation of the
Court's electronic filing system upon all counsel of record.
/s/ Cheryl A. Kelly
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?