Praither et al v. Northbrook Bank & Trust Company et al
Plaintiff: Marcello Caliva and John Praither
Defendant: Tamer Moumen and Northbrook Bank & Trust Company
Case Number: 1:2018cv07411
Filed: November 8, 2018
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: John Robert Blakey
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1441
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 12, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 12, 2018 Filing 18 REMAND with certified copy of order #10 dated 12/10/18 and letter to Circuit Court of Cook County via email. (kp, )
December 10, 2018 Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County [1-1] against Northbrook Bank & Trust and one of its customers, Tamer Moumen. Plaintiffs' state court complaint asserts claims of negligence and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Northbrook, as well as a claim of unjust enrichment against Moumen. See [1-1]. As part of the allegations, the complaint references the Bank Secrecy Act and alleges that the Act, and relevant banking regulations compelled Northbrook to implement certain procedures and operational safeguards that should have alerted the bank to the fact that Moumen was operating a Ponzi Scheme, which bilked Plaintiffs out of almost $1 million. Based upon the perceived invocation of federal law, Northbrook removed the case #1 , though it did so without Moumen's consent because he had not yet been served. Plaintiffs moved to remand #12 . Defendants may remove a civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). And a district court has original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 1331. "Ordinarily, a suit 'arises under the law that creates the cause of action.' But federal-question jurisdiction may also be proper if a 'well-pleaded complaint established that its right to relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law.' Praschak v. Kmart Corp., 922 F. Supp. 2d 710, 71213 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (quoting American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916); Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983)). In Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 312-13 (2005), the Supreme Court recognized that "in certain cases federal-question jurisdiction will lie over state-law claims that implicate significant federal issues." A state-law claim may give rise to federal-question jurisdiction if it "appears from the [complaint] that the right to relief depends upon the construction or application of [federal law]." Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 199 (1921). Here, Plaintiffs' complaint does not allege any claim under the BSA; indeed, the parties concede that the Act does not provide for a private right of action. Nor does resolution of Plaintiffs' claims require the Court to construe or interpret the BSA; both parties agree that Northbrook complied with its obligations under the Act. At the hearing on the motion to remand, Northbrook argued that jurisdiction exists because of Plaintiffs' attempt to prove knowledge of Moumen's Ponzi Scheme through compliance with the BSA. But that is a factual question, not a legal question requiring construction, interpretation, or even application of the BSA. Indirectly tying Northbrook's actions to the BSA is not enough to confer jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to remand #12 is granted, and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Cook County. The Clerk is directed to transfer the case forthwith. All set dates, including the 12/20/18 initial status conference, are stricken. Mailed notice (gel, )
December 4, 2018 Filing 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Motion hearing held on 12/4/2018. Plaintiff's motion to remand #12 is taken under advisement and the Court will issue a ruling by separate order. Mailed notice (gel, )
November 28, 2018 Filing 15 RESPONSE by Northbrook Bank & Trust Companyin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiffs Marcello Caliva, John Praither to remand #12 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Marino, Elizabeth)
November 21, 2018 Filing 14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff's motion to remand #12 is entered and continued to 12/4/18 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1203. The 11/27/18 Notice of Motion date is stricken, and the parties need not appear. Defendant shall file a response to the motion to remand by 11/28/18. Mailed notice (gel, )
November 19, 2018 Filing 13 NOTICE of Motion by Alexander Nicholas Loftus for presentment of motion to remand #12 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 11/27/2018 at 09:00 AM. (Loftus, Alexander)
November 19, 2018 Filing 12 MOTION by Plaintiffs Marcello Caliva, John Praither to remand (Loftus, Alexander)
November 19, 2018 Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond #9 is granted. The Court will set a new responsive pleading deadline at the initial status conference on 12/20/18. The 11/20/18 Notice of Motion date is stricken, and the parties need not appear. Mailed notice (gel, )
November 13, 2018 Filing 10 NOTICE of Motion by Michael Peter Conway for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer #9 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 11/20/2018 at 09:45 AM. (Conway, Michael)
November 13, 2018 Filing 9 MOTION by Defendant Northbrook Bank & Trust Company for extension of time to file answer (Conway, Michael)
November 9, 2018 Filing 8 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (ek, )
November 9, 2018 Filing 7 MAILED Notice of Removal letter to counsel of record. (ek, )
November 9, 2018 Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: This case has been assigned to the calendar of the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Pursuant to General Order 17-0005, this case falls within the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) Project, and the "Standing Order in MIDP Cases" now governs the conduct of the litigants in this matter. Under the MIDP, this Court shall enforce the MIDP Standing Order via the Court's inherent authority (including the contempt of court power) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, both the parties and their attorneys are hereby ordered to review and fully comply with the MIDP Standing Order, which is available on the Court's homepage: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/MIDP Standing Order.pdf. The parties are further advised that in light of the MIDP's intended goal of reducing the traditional cost and delay of federal civil litigation, this Court will not grant routine motions for extensions of time to meet the deadlines imposed by the MIDP Standing Order (even agreed motions made jointly by the parties). During the course of the litigation, the attorneys must also appear at all hearing dates set by the Court or noticed by the parties. If an attorney has a conflict with a set court date, the attorney must notify Judge Blakey's Courtroom Deputy, Gloria Lewis, at (312)818-6699. If appropriate, the Court will then reset the matter. Advising opposing counsel of a scheduling conflict is not a substitute for communicating directly with the Court. The litigants are further ordered to review and fully comply with all of this Court's own standing orders, which are available on Judge Blakey's information page on the Court's official website: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/. An initial status conference is hereby set for 12/20/2018 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1203. At the status conference, the Court will discuss the MIDP and ask the parties questions to verify that they have reviewed and complied with the MIDP Standing Order. Without exception, the parties must also file a status report no later than 12/10/2018, using the model template set forth in this Court's standing order regarding Initial (or Reassignment) Status Conferences. Failure by any party to file the status report by the requisite deadline (either jointly or, if necessary, individually with an explanation as to why a joint report could not be filed) may result in a summary dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute, or an entry of default against any served defendant(s) failing to comply with this order. Mailed notice (gel, )
November 8, 2018 CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (acm)
November 8, 2018 Filing 5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Northbrook Bank & Trust Company by Elizabeth Jenkins Marino (Marino, Elizabeth)
November 8, 2018 Filing 4 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Northbrook Bank & Trust Company re notice of removal, #1 (Conway, Michael)
November 8, 2018 Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Northbrook Bank & Trust Company by Michael Peter Conway (Conway, Michael)
November 8, 2018 Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Conway, Michael)
November 8, 2018 Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery Division, case number (2018-CH-12935) filed by Northbrook Bank & Trust Company Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-15160095. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1. Complaint - 2018-CH-12935, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2. Docket - 2018-CH-12935)(Conway, Michael)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Praither et al v. Northbrook Bank & Trust Company et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Tamer Moumen
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Northbrook Bank & Trust Company
Represented By: Michael Peter Conway
Represented By: Elizabeth Jenkins Marino
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marcello Caliva
Represented By: Alexander Nicholas Loftus
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: John Praither
Represented By: Alexander Nicholas Loftus
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?