Ornelas v. Bank of America, N.A.
| Ruben Ornelas |
| Bank of America, N.A. |
| 1:2022cv06378 |
| November 15, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Steven C Seeger |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 CERTIFICATE Certificate of Service Certificate of Service (Cook, Benjamin) |
| Filing 18 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court continues to have questions about whether this case satisfies the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. See 11/18/22 Order (Dckt. No. #6 ); 12/8/22 Order (Dckt. No. #10 ). By way of background, the case is about the Defendant Bank of America's failure to honor a check for $747.68. See Cplt., at 6 (Dckt. No. #1 -1, at 6 of 14). Plaintiff Ruben Ornelas wanted to deposit a check from his car insurance company, Allstate. Id. He claims that Bank of America incorrectly determined that his check was altered, and so did not honor his attempt to deposit it. Id. So, Ornelas sued Bank of America in state court, demanding $300,000. Id. Ornelas's complaint doesn't include specific counts. Instead, the complaint offers free-form text describing Bank of America's failure to honor the check. Ornelas claims that Allstate confirmed that the check "was accurate and not altered" and that he "went through close to 5 years not being able to open an account with a reputable bank due to the lack of [a] thorough investigation by Bank of America" into the check's authenticity. Id. It appears that Bank of America closed Ornelas's account because of the allegedly fraudulent check. Id. at 7. Ornelas also implies that "misinformation" was "provided to the major consumer reports" after this incident. Id. Bank of America responded by filing a notice of removal to federal court, invoking this Court's diversity jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal, at 3 (Dckt. No. #1 ). No other basis for jurisdiction was given. Diversity jurisdiction requires that "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs." See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). This Court previously raised questions about how Ornelas's case could satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. The Court found it "difficult... to envision [a] scenario in which Plaintiff could have suffered a harm exceeding $75,000 based on the alleged facts." See 11/18/22 Order (Dckt. No. #6 ). The Court noted that "[c]ourts generally give wide latitude to the allegations in [a] complaint about the amount at issue. But wide latitude is not the same thing as carte blanche." Id. So, the Court ordered Bank of America - as the party invoking the Court's jurisdiction - to file a supplemental brief addressing the amount-in-controversy requirement. Id. Bank of America's brief argues that the amount in controversy is satisfied here because Ornelas's complaint demanded $300,000 and because Ornelas made settlement demands for $300,000 and $225,000. See Suppl. Br. in Supp. of Notice of Removal, at 6 (Dckt. No. #9 ). Bank of America supports its position by citing to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3) which states that "if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." Bank of America argues that Ornelas's written settlement demands satisfy the "other paper" language of the statute and "can serve as the basis for removal jurisdiction." See Suppl. Br. in Supp. of Notice of Removal, at 7 (Dckt. No. #9 ). After reviewing Bank of America's supplemental brief, the Court ordered Ornelas to "file a statement and pinpoint the amount in controversy." See 12/8/22 Order (Dckt. No. #10 ). Specifically, Plaintiff needed to file a statement and address what relief Plaintiff is seeking in the case, including "specify the damages that he is seeking" and to "prove the factual basis for doing so." Id. Plaintiff's statement was due by December 19, 2022. Id. He has yet to file a statement. To assess the amount in controversy in this case, the Court continues to require more information and more clarity from Plaintiff. The Court needs to know what claims Plaintiff is advancing, and what relief he is seeking. By January 25, 2023, Plaintiff must file a statement explaining what claims he is advancing and what relief is associated with each claim. Plaintiff's statement must also address if he is seeking more than $75,000 in damages, and if so, he must explain the basis for that demand. A failure to comply may lead to appropriate relief, including possible remand. Bank of America can file a supplemental statement about the existence of subject matter jurisdiction by January 20, 2023, if it chooses to do so. Bank of America must serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff and file a certificate of service on the docket. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 17 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant Bank of America has now moved for an extension of time three times to extend the deadline for the answer. Reading and granting a motion, even a simple motion, takes time and drains judicial resources. The judiciary is not like an ATM machine. It is not an automated process. This Court has now had to read three motions and issue three orders for one litigant, for one deadline, in a sea of hundreds of cases. Saying that the "requested extension does not prejudice" the parties (Dckt. No. #15 ) doesn't exactly capture the situation, because repeated motions for simple matters impose a burden on the court itself. There will not be a fourth extension. To turn back to the ATM analogy, Bank of America has hit its limit. Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| Filing 16 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant's third consent motion for extension of time to respond (Dckt. No. #15 ) is hereby granted. The response to the complaint is due by January 27, 2023. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 15 MOTION by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. for extension of time to file answer [Third Agreed] (Cook, Benjamin) |
| Filing 14 ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to #Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates)#, any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this #LINK# will provide additional information. Signed by the Executive Committee on 12/29/2022: Mailed notice. (tg, ) |
| Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendant Bank of America's motion for extension of time (Dckt. No. #12 ) is hereby granted. As proposed, the response to the complaint is due by January 6, 2023. Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| Filing 12 MOTION by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. for extension of time to file answer [Second Agreed] (Cook, Benjamin) |
| Filing 11 CERTIFICATE of Service by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. regarding text entry,,, #10 (Cook, Benjamin) |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court reviewed the supplemental filing by Defendant Bank of America. (Dckt. No. #9 ) The case is about the bank's failure to honor a check for $747.68. Defendant removed the case because Plaintiff is seeking $300,000 in damages. By December 19, 2022, Plaintiff must file a statement and pinpoint the amount in controversy. That is, what relief is Plaintiff seeking in this case? Plaintiff must specify the damages that he is seeking, and must provide the factual basis for doing so. A failure to comply can lead to appropriate relief, including possible dismissal. Defendant must serve a copy of this Order on Plaintiff by email, and file a certificate of service. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 9 SUPPLEMENT to notice of removal, #1 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Cook, Benjamin) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendants' motion for an extension of time (Dckt. No. #7 ) is hereby granted. The response to the complaint is due by December 13, 2022. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Defer Responsive Pleading Deadline (MIDP) , filed by Defendant Bank of America, N.A.. (Cook, Benjamin) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: The Court took a look at the complaint in this action newly removed from state court. The case is about the failure of the Bank of America to honor a check for $747.68, because it allegedly was altered. Plaintiff seeks $300,000 for that indignity. Bank of America removed the case to federal court, contending that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Courts generally give wide latitude to the allegations in an complaint about the amount at issue. But wide latitude is not the same thing as carte blanche. Courts will not dismiss a claim unless it "appear[s] to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount." See St. Paul Mercury Indem. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938). It is difficult for this Court to envision an scenario in which Plaintiff could have suffered a harm exceeding $75,000 based on the alleged facts. Bank of America must file a supplemental brief addressing the amount in controversy, with supporting case law from the Seventh Circuit, by December 2, 2022. Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: An initial status report is due by January 30, 2023. Counsel must read the Standing Order entitled "Initial Status Conferences and Joint Initial Status Reports" on the Court's website. The parties must confer as required by Rule 26(f) about the nature, scope, and duration of discovery. The parties must submit two documents to the Court. First, the parties must file the Joint Initial Status Report under Rule 26(f) on the docket. A Word version of the Joint Initial Status Report is available on the Court's website. All parties must participate in the preparation and filing of the Joint Initial Status Report. The Court requires a joint report, so a filing by one side or the other is not sufficient. Second, the parties must email a Word version of a proposed Scheduling Order under Rule 16(b) to the Court's proposed order inbox. Lead counsel for the parties must participate in filing the initial status report. Plaintiff must serve this Order on all other parties. If the defendant has not been served with process, plaintiff's counsel must contact the Courtroom Deputy at jessica_j_ramos@ilnd.uscourts.gov to reschedule the initial status report deadline. Plaintiff should not file the Joint Initial Status Report before the defendant(s) has been served with process. The parties must discuss settlement in good faith and make a serious attempt to resolve this case amicably. All counsel of record must read and comply with this Court's Standing Orders on its webpage. Please pay special attention to the Standing Orders about Depositions and Discovery. Mailed notice (jjr, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Steven C. Seeger. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes. Case assignment: Random assignment. (mbh, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (ph, ) |
| Filing 4 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Bank of America, N.A. (Cook, Benjamin) |
| Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Bank of America, N.A. by Benjamin Hoopes Cook (Cook, Benjamin) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Cook, Benjamin) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court for Cook County Illinois, case number (2022-1-009294) filed by Bank of America, N.A. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AILNDC-20047870. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Cook, Benjamin) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Ornelas v. Bank of America, N.A. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Ruben Ornelas | |
| 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: Bank of America, N.A. | |
| Represented By: | Benjamin Hoopes Cook |
| 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.
