Capital One Equipment Finance Corp. v. Big 3 Taxi, Corp. et al

Filing 125

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to damages and for attorneys' fees and costs 113 is granted in part and denied in part. The Court accordingly imposes awards against each Defendant as follows: & #036;1,297,180.69 against Big 3 Taxi; $322,542.61 against Charley Taxi Corp., II; $324,245.27 against Elvins Taxi Corp.; $1,621,225.56 against Euphoria Taxi Corp.; $324,245.27 against Harvard Taxi Corp.; $324,245.24 against T winky's Taxi Corp.; $1,621,225.56 against Hymes Taxi Corp.; $969,339.30 against Mystic Taxi Corp.; and $1,621,225.56 against Sunrise Taxi Corp. Elvin Shtayner shall be jointly and severally liable for the damage awards against th e first six companies, totaling $4,213,684.64. Stanley Shtayner shall be jointly and severally liable for the damage awards against the final three companies, totaling $4,211,790.42. Yasya Shtayner shall be jointly and severally liable fo r the damage awards against all nine companies, totaling $8,425,475.06. The Court also awards Capital One $287,135.15 in attorneys' fees and $1,774.31 in costs. This judgment shall carry a 2.67% interest rate until it is satisfied. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 11/29/2018:Mailed notice(maf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CAPITAL ONE EQUIPMENT FINANCE
CORP. f/k/a ALL POINTS
CAPITAL CORP., d/b/a CAPITAL
ONE TAXI MEDALLION FINANCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BIG 3 TAXI CORP.; CHARLEY
TAXI CORP., II; ELVIN’S TAXI
CORP.; EUPHORIA TAXI CORP.;
HARVARD TAXI CORP.; MYSTIC
TAXI CORP.; SUNRISE TAXI
CORP.; TWINKY’S TAXI CORP.;
ELVIN SHTAYNER; STANLEY
SHTAYNER; and YASYA SHTAYNER,

Case No. 17 C 234
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Capital One Equipment Finance Corp. (“Capital One”)
moved for and won summary judgment as to liability against the
Defendants, Big 3 Taxi Corp., Charley Taxi Corp., Elvin’s Taxi
Corp, Euphoria Taxi Corp., Harvard Taxi Corp., Hymes Taxi Corp.,
Mystic Taxi Corp., Sunrise Taxi Corp., Twinky’s Taxi Corp., Elvin
Shtayner,

Stanley

Shtayner,

and

Yasya

Shtayner,

based

on

promissory notes and guaranties related to Defendants’ defaultedupon loans.

Having won on liability, Capital One now moves for

summary judgment as to damages and seeks costs and fees.

(Dkt.

No. 113.)

For the reasons stated herein, that Motion is granted

in part and denied in part.
I.

BACKGROUND

The Court has already found in Capital One’s favor on the
question of liability.
No. 98.)

(See generally Mem. Op. & Order, Dkt.

Though that ruling sets forth this suit’s background in

detail, the Court includes here a brief summary for clarity’s sake.
In

2012,

non-party

Tri-Global

Financial

Services,

Inc.

originated loans for each of the nine Defendant companies owned by
the Shtayner brothers, Elvin—who owns six of the companies—and
Stanley—who owns three.

Each brother executed promissory notes

for the sums loaned to each of their respective companies.
same

time,

each

brother

signed

respective companies’ loans.

guaranties

for

each

of

At the
their

Finally, Yasya Shtayner, mother to

Elvin and Stanley, signed a guaranty for all nine loans.
Tri-Global

exited

the

picture

soon

thereafter,

having

transferred the notes and their attendant guaranties to Capital
One.

Then, when Defendants universally failed to pay up on the

obligations reflected in the notes, Capital One initiated this
action to collect what it was due.

The parties filed competing

motions for summary judgment as to liability, and the Court found
in Capital One’s favor.

All that remains now is the question of

damages.

- 2 -

On July 11, 2018, Capital One moved for summary judgment as
to damages, seeking both the amounts due on the nine notes and
attorneys’
efforts.

fees

and

costs

accumulated

via

these

(Pl.’s Summ. J. Mot., Dkt. No. 113.)

collection
The parties

appeared before the Court shortly thereafter, and Defendants asked
for leave to conduct damages discovery before responding to Capital
One’s Motion.

The Court granted Defendants one month to conduct

discovery and set a response deadline of September 18, 2018.
Hearing Tr. 5:20-25, Dkt. No. 121.)

(See

Then, on joint motion of the

parties, the Court extended that deadline to October 5th.

That

date came and went, yet Defendants never filed a response to
Capital One’s Motion.

The Court must rule without it.

In its Statement of Material Facts (“SOF”), Capital One
explains that prior to the November 1, 2015, maturity date, each
loan was subject to an interest rate of 5.5% per year, calculated
on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve, 30-day months.
(Capital One’s SOF ¶¶ 5, 12, 19, 26, 33, 40, 47, 54, 61.)

Once

Defendants failed to repay the loans on the maturity date, however,
Capital One became entitled under those notes’ terms to collect
post-maturity default interest at the “highest rate permitted by
law.”

(Id. ¶¶ 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63.)

As each loan’s

payment history indicates, Capital One has chosen 9.0% as the postmaturity interest rate.

(Id. ¶¶ 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56,

63; accord 815 ILCS 205/4 (setting a 9% ceiling on interest rates
- 3 -

agreed to in contracts governed by Illinois law).)

In addition,

each note contains a late-charge provision stating that in the
event the signatory fails to pay any amount within ten days of the
due date for said payment, “a late charge of five cents ($0.05)
for each dollar ($1.00) so overdue may be charged by the Lender.”
(Id. ¶¶ 8, 15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 50, 57, 64.)

That five-cent charge

effectively amounts to a five-percent late fee on each loan’s
principal.
Defendants, who fail to respond to Capital One’s Motion, do
not dispute any of the above.

Because Defendants do not present

any statements of their own controverting those set forth by
Capital One, “[a]ll material facts set forth in [Capital One’s]
statement . . . will be deemed to be admitted.”

Friend v. Valley

View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 365U, 789 F.3d 707, 710 (7th Cir. 2015)
(citing N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C)).
Against this backdrop, Capital One provides the three summary
tables reproduced below.

These tables showcase the amount due

under each loan as of July 11, 2018, the date Capital One filed
the instant Summary Judgment Motion.

- 4 -

Amounts Due on Elvin Shtayner Company Loans
Borrower Defendant
Big 3 Taxi Corp.
Charley Taxi
Corp., II
Elvin’s Taxi Corp.
Euphoria Taxi
Corp.
Harvard Taxi Corp.
Twinky’s Taxi
Corp.
Total:

Amount Due — July 11,
2018
$1,261,680.69
$313,707.37

Per Diem Interest
Post-July 11, 2018
$250.00
$62.22

$315,370.27
$1,576,850.56

$62.50
$312.50

$315,370.27
$315,370.24

$62.50
$62.50

$4,098,349.40

$812.22

Amounts Due on Stanley Shtayner Company Loans
Borrower Defendant
Hymes Taxi Corp.
Mystic Taxi Corp.
Sunrise Taxi Corp.
Total:

Amount Due — July 11,
2018
$1,576,850.56
$942,793.82
$1,576,850.56
$4,096,494.94

Per Diem Interest
Post-July 11, 2018
$312.50
$186.94
$312.50
$811.94

Amounts Due on All Loans
Loan Pool
Elvin Shtayner
Company Loans
Stanley Shtayner
Company Loans
Total:

Amount Due — July 11,
2018
$4,098,349.40

Per Diem Interest
Post-July 11, 2018
$812.22

$4,096,494.94

$811.94

$8,194,844.34

$1,624.16

(SOF ¶¶ 67-69.)
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Legal damages, like liability, can be determined via the
summary judgment mechanism.”

Hanover Ins. v. N. Bldg. Co., 751

F.3d 788, 795 (7th Cir. 2014).

Summary judgment must be granted

“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
- 5 -

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).

A genuine issue of material fact

exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

Zaya v. Sood, 836 F.3d 800,

804 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).

When evaluating summary judgment motions,

courts must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant.
372, 378 (2007).

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.

“Once a party has made a properly-supported

motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party may not simply
rest

upon

the

pleadings

but

must

instead

submit

evidentiary

materials that ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.’”

Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932,

937 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)).
III.

DISCUSSION

The Court has already found Defendants liable and now because
there are no genuine issues of material fact as to damages, the
Court finds Capital One entitled to the following damages as a
matter of law.

The Court has calculated these sums by adding to

the July 11, 2018, amounts the respective per diem multiplied by
142, the number of days between July 11th and today, November 29,
2018, the date the Court enters judgment in this case.

Each

guarantor—Elvin, Stanley, and Yasya—shall be jointly and severally

- 6 -

liable with each borrower Defendant on those loans the respective
Shtayners guarantied.
Total Damages Owed by Elvin Shtayner Companies
Borrower Defendant

Total Amount Due as of Date of
Judgment: November 29, 2018
$1,297,180.69
$322,542.61
$324,245.27
$1,621,225.56
$324,245.27
$324,245.24

Big 3 Taxi Corp.
Charley Taxi Corp., II
Elvin’s Taxi Corp.
Euphoria Taxi Corp.
Harvard Taxi Corp.
Twinky’s Taxi Corp.
Elvin Shtayner Personal
Guaranty Total:

$4,213,684.64

Total Damages Owed by Stanley Shtayner Companies
Borrower Defendant

Total Amount Due as of Date of
Judgment: November 29, 2018
$1,621,225.56
$969,339.30
$1,621,225.56

Hymes Taxi Corp.
Mystic Taxi Corp.
Sunrise Taxi Corp.
Stanley Shtayner Personal
Guaranty Total:

$4,211,790.42

Total Damages Owed by Yasya Shtayner, Personal Guarantor of All
Nine Loans Recited Above
Loan Pool
Elvin Shtayner Company Loans
Stanley Shtayner Company
Loans
Yasya Shtayner Personal
Guaranty Total:

Amount Due — July 11, 2018
$4,213,684.64
$4,211,790.42
$8,425,475.06

These calculations answer the damages question.

What remains

are Capital One’s requests for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Whether

a party is entitled to fees and costs under a contract is a
substantive

issue

governed

quantifying

costs

and

fees

by
is

state
a

- 7 -

law,

but

procedural

the

method

of

issue

which,

in

diversity cases like this one, is governed by federal law.

Taco

Bell Corp. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 388 F.3d 1069, 1076-77 (7th Cir.
2004).

In Illinois, a party is entitled to attorneys’ fees only

when a statute or contract specifically directs them.

Prudential

Ins. Co. of Am. v. Curt Bullock Builders, Inc., 626 F. Supp. 159,
170 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (citations omitted) (observing that such terms
could appear in the promissory note itself or in the loan agreement
which accompanies it).

Contracts may direct costs as well.

See

Penn. Truck Lines, Inc. v. Solar Equity Corp., 127 F.R.D. 127, 128
(N.D. Ill. 1988), aff’d, 882 F.2d 221 (7th Cir. 1989).
Here, the promissory notes and the guaranties specifically
direct fees and costs expended in post-default collection efforts.
(See, e.g., Big 3 Taxi Promissory Note, Ex. 2 to Hussain Aff.,
Dkt. No. 44-2 (“The undersigned, and all persons liable or to
become liable on this Note, agree, jointly and severally, to pay
all costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and
disbursements, in case the unpaid principal balance of this Note
. . . is not paid when due[.]”); Elvin Shtayner Big 3 Taxi Guaranty,
Ex. 12 to Hussain Aff., Dkt. No. 44-12 (imposing on guarantor all
liabilities

of

the

borrower,

including

all

interest

and

“attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses of collection incurred by the
Lender in enforcing any of such liabilities”).) As such, the Court
need only decide whether the fees and costs sought are reasonable.

- 8 -

When the terms of a contract entitle a party to fees and
costs, that entitlement carries an implied requirement that the
fees sought be “commercially reasonable,” “meaning that a party’s
aggregate costs must be reasonable in light of the stakes of the
case and the opposing party’s litigation strategy.”
Absorbent

Materials,

Inc.

v.

Sustainable

Textile

Sellars

Grp.,

LLC,

No. 11-CV-00400, 2012 WL 2415544, at *1 (E.D. Wis. June 25, 2012)
(citing Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d 565, 572
(7th Cir. 2011)).

“In other words, fees are to be awarded at

market value, and ‘the best evidence of the market value of legal
services is what people pay for it.’”

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

v. PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Corp. Tbk, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1014,
1021-22 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (quoting Balcor Real Estate Holdings,
Inc. v. Walentas-Phoenix Corp., 73 F.3d 150, 153 (7th Cir. 1996)),
aff’d sub nom. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co.,
707 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2013).
be reasonable as well.

Costs directed under contract must

See id.

Capital One seeks $294,897.48 in attorneys’ fees.

In support

of that request, Capital One submits invoices and billing sheets
reflecting $283,253.98 of their sought-after sum.

Defendants meet

this evidence with silence, so they have clearly not identified
any evidence showing that the requested fees are unreasonable.
Based on the Court’s review of Capital One’s records, the Court
sees nothing unreasonable about the $283,253.98, and so that amount
- 9 -

shall

be

awarded.

Capital

One

explains

that

the

additional

$11,643.50 it seeks represents legal services rendered in June
2018 but not yet paid as of this Motion’s July 2018 filing date.
(SOF ¶ 75; Browne Decl. ¶ 51, Dkt. No. 118.)

Presumably, those

June expenses represent counsels’ work on the instant Motion, which
Capital One filed on July 11, 2018.
advance

the

litigation,

and

This Motion was necessary to

Capital

One

could

reasonably

be

expected to have accumulated some legal fees via the Motion’s
development.
to

that

And yet, without the aid of billing sheets attesting

work,

the

Court

cannot

be

assured

these

fees

reasonable (notwithstanding Defendants’ failure to object).

were
The

Court will accordingly reduce that final $11,643.50 by two-thirds,
to $3,881.17, and then add that reduced amount to the earlierdescribed sum to reach a final fee award of $287,135.15.

See Vocca

v. Playboy Hotel of Chi., Inc., 686 F.2d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
(“District courts have broad discretion in making attorney’s fee
awards.”).
Capital One also seeks costs in the amount of $5,322.92.

The

sole support Capital One submits for this request is a single
pronouncement,

recited

without

citation

evidence, by one of their attorneys.

to

any

(Browne Decl. ¶ 49 (stating

simply that Capital One paid $5,322.92 in costs).)
do.

supporting

This will not

The Court must be given some insight into the source of costs

to determine their reasonableness.
- 10 -

It makes sense that Capital

One accrued some costs over the course of this nearly two-yearslong litigation, but absent some documentation the Court is in no
position to judge these costs with precision.

Accordingly, and

noting once more that Defendants do not object to the request for
costs, the Court reduces Capital One’s costs by two-thirds and
awards $1,774.31.
One issue remains.

Capital One contends that post-judgment

interest should accrue on all of the amounts ordered above.
Court agrees.

The

28 U.S.C. § 1961 recites that “[i]nterest shall be

allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a
district court . . . at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year
constant maturity Treasury yield . . . for the calendar week
preceding the date of judgment.”

28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

Said

interest shall compound annually.

28 U.S.C. § 1961(b).

Last

week’s average for the 1-year constant maturity treasury yield was
2.67%.

U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Daily Treasury Yield Curve

Rates (Nov. 27, 2018, 1:44 PM), https://www.treasury.gov/resourcecenter/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data
=yield.

The Court accordingly imposes that interest rate on all

sums imposed by this judgment.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Capital One’s
Motion for Summary Judgment as to damages and imposes awards
against each Defendant as follows: $1,297,180.69 against Big 3
- 11 -

Taxi; $322,542.61 against Charley Taxi Corp., II; $324,245.27
against Elvin’s Taxi Corp.; $1,621,225.56 against Euphoria Taxi
Corp.; $324,245.27 against Harvard Taxi Corp.; $324,245.24 against
Twinky’s

Taxi

Corp.;

$1,621,225.56

against

Hymes

Taxi

Corp.;

$969,339.30 against Mystic Taxi Corp.; and $1,621,225.56 against
Sunrise Taxi Corp.

Elvin Shtayner shall be jointly and severally

liable for the damage awards against the first six companies,
totaling $4,213,684.64.

Stanley Shtayner shall be jointly and

severally liable for the damage awards against the final three
companies,

totaling

$4,211,790.42.

Yasya

Shtayner

shall

be

jointly and severally liable for the damage awards against all
nine companies, totaling $8,425,475.06.

The Court also awards

Capital One $287,135.15 in attorneys’ fees and $1,774.31 in costs.
This judgment shall carry a 2.67% interest rate until it is
satisfied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated: 11/29/2018

- 12 -