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. 1:17-cv-00207
INTERFACE PROTEIN TECHNOLOGY INC., an
CHARLES XIAO Q[NG HAN (also known as
CHARLES X. HAN, CHARLES HAN, CHARLES
XIAO-Q[NG HAN, CHARLES XIAOQING HAN,
XIAO QING CHARLES HAN, XIAOQ[NG HAN,
XIAO-QING HAN and HAN XIAOQ[NG), an
MINDY MINGXIA LIU (also known as MINDY M
LIU, MINGXJA MINDY LIU, MINGXJA LIU, and
MING-XIA LIU), an individual,
This matter comes before the Court by consent ofthe parties to this Case.
The Court being fully advised in the premises FINDS that
At a status conference held in this Case on July 5, 2017, counsel to Defendants
proposed entry ofa consentjudgment against Defendants as the means ofresolving this Case.
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 Liii, Case No. 17-21 154 (the
In accordance with the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 362(a), any and all further
proceedings in this action are stayed with respect to Mr. Han and Ms. Liu.
In consideration of the foregoing, the parties are agreeing to entry of this Order
and Judgment in this Case in favor of Plaintiff and solely against Defendant INTERFACE
PROTEIN TECHNOLOGY INC., an Illinois corporation, on the terms set forth below.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
THAT judgment is entered against Defendant INTERFACE PROTEIN TECHNOLOGY INC.,
Judgment is entered on Count I of the Complaint in favor of Citibank, N.A. and
against INTERFACE PROTEIN TECI-INOLOGY INC. for $1,587,334.88 (consisting of unpaid
principal due pursuant to the Loan Documents executed and delivered by Interface Protein
Technology Inc. for the benefit of Plaintiff as described in the Complaint ($ 1 ,499,260.76), plus
interest accrued thereon through August 9, 2017 ($58,074.12), plus reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs ($30,000.00) through June 30, 2017). From and after August 9, 2017, interest shall
accrue on the sum of$1,587,334.88 at the applicable federal statutory rate.
Defendant INTERFACE PROTEIN TECI-INOLOGY INC. understands its rights
to appeal this order and judgment pursuant to applicable law. To induce Plaintiffto agree to this
Consent Judgment, Defendant INTERFACE PROTEIN TECHNOLOGY INC. understands that
such Defendant is waiving its rights to appeal. This is a final order and judgment as regards
INTERFACE PROTEIN TECHNOLOGY INC. respecting the Note, the Loan Agreement and
the Loan described in the Complaint and there is no just reason for delaying the enforcement of
this Consent Judgment as against INTERFACE PROTEIN TECHNOLOGY INC.
This Judgment is solely against Interface Protein Technology Inc., and nothing in
this Judgment and Order is intended to nor shall constitute an effort to collect or enforce
indebtedness against Defendants Han and Liu who are debtors in the Bankruptcy Case.
Date: August 3, 2017
Seen and agreed to:
Consented to and prepared by:
On behalfofPlaintiff, Citibank, N.A.
On behalf of Defendant Interface Protein
By: /s/CherylA. Kelly
Todd A. Rowden (ARDC #6201929)
Cheryl A. Kelly (ARDC #6203 101)
Audrey D. Mense (ARDC #63 02524)
Thompson Coburn LLP
55 E. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
By: /s/ Michael C. Whitticar
Michael C. Whitticar
NOVA IP Law, PLLC
7001 Heritage Village Plaza, Suite 205
Gainesville, VA 20155
E-Mail : firstname.lastname@example.org;
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?