The District of Northern Illinois offers a database of opinions for the years 1999 to 2013, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Subscribe to All Opinions

Judge Jack B. Schmetterer

14 B 41914

12 B 40168, 14 A 00366

In re Robert J. Meier
June 12, 2015

14 B 10105

Judge Timothy A. Barnes

13 B 30975,  13 A 01294
Upon the Defendant’s amended motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s adversary complaint objecting to discharge of debt owed to A&H Caring Connections, Inc. (“A&H”) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) and 11 U.S.C. § 727(a), the underlying interest having been assigned to the Plaintiff by A&H and the Defendant seeking dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on the grounds that the underlying assignment is void as a matter of public policy and in violation of Illinois law, held: For purposes of testing the sufficiency of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Defendant has failed to satisfy his burden of showing the complaint is insufficient. The amended motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

13 B 44431 14 A 790

Judge Carol A. Doyle

Judge Jacqueline P. Cox

12  B 24676, 14 A 00392
In this Chapter 7 adversary proceeding, the Trustee filed an Amended Adversary Complaint seeking to avoid and recover transfers made in connection with a commercial mortgage-backed securitization transaction. The Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that certain of the transfers were covered by the safe harbor provision of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).  In response, the Trustee argued that the safe harbor provision did not apply because the transactions at issue involved a two-tiered commercial mortgage loan transaction. The Trustee also disputed that the recipient was a financial institution.  The Court decided in favor of the Defendants, noting that the transactions at issue fit squarely within the broad definition of a securities contract as defined by § 741(7)(A) and used in § 546(e).

Because the parties did not consent to the Court’s entry of a final order on the fraudulent transfer claims, the Court submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9033.  On the preferential transfer claim, the Court determined that it had both statutory and constitutional authority to enter its order dismissing the claim, with prejudice.

The Court recommended dismissal of the actual fraud transfer claims without prejudice, because those claims were not plead with specificity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).