Hammer v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. | Chicago Jury Returns $2Million Verdict for Homeowner

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Hammer v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. | Chicago Jury Returns $2Million Verdict for Homeowner

Hammer v. Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. | Chicago Jury Returns $2Million Verdict for Homeowner

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois – CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET (Attached) FOR CASE #: 1:13-cv-06397

Hammer

v.
Residential Credit Solutions, Inc.
.
Date Filed #      Docket Text
09/11/2014 42  MEMORANDUM (linked) Opinion and Order:Residential Credit Solution’s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part 30 . Hammer has pled sufficient factual allegations to survive RCS’s motion to dismiss her claims for breach of contract and violation of RESPA. The Court grants RCS’s motion to dismiss Hammer’s FDCPA claims with prejudice and grants the motion to dismiss Hammer’s ICFA claim without prejudice and with leave to replead. Status hearing held on 9/11/2014. Any amended complaint is to be filed on or before 9/26/14. Defendant’s answer is due by 10/10/14. Written discovery is to be issued by 11/3/14. Fact Discovery ordered closed by 1/15/2015. Jury Trial set for 2/23/2015 at 09:30 AM. Status hearing set for 10/29/2014 at 09:00 AM. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 9/11/2014:Mailed notice(srn, ) (Entered: 09/11/2014)

(Attached)

09/26/2014 43  AMENDED complaint by Alena W. Hammer against Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A, # 2 Exhibit Ex. B, # 3 Exhibit Ex. C, # 4 Notice of Filing Notice of Filing)(Zambon, Ross) (Entered: 09/26/2014)03/09/2015 117 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin:Defendant’s motion to dismiss Counts II and III, R. 58, is denied. Nearly all of Defendant’s arguments go to issues of sufficient evidence, not proper pleading. The motion to dismiss Count IV, R. 58, is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the motion to dismiss Count IV with respect to Plaintiffs RESPA claim under § 2609 is granted with prejudice. Plaintiff seeks to replead the alleged § 2609 violations in her breach of contract claim as requested in her response brief, R. 89 at 10 n.5. Whether the Court will allow amendment of the complaint on this or any other count of the complaint or simply allow the evidence to be offered without amendment will be discussed at the final pretrial conference. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count IV is denied on all other grounds. The Court will provide the basis for its ruling at the final pretrial conference scheduled for 4/8/15 at 2:00 p.m.Mailed notice (srn, ) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
(Attached)
04/20/2015 174 ORDER: Jury trial held and completed. Defendant’s renewed Rule 50 motion and motion for a directed verdict are denied for the reasons stated. Jury returns a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1,500,000 in punitive damages. Enter Verdict. Post trial motions are to be filed by 5/18/15. Responses are due 6/15/15. Replies are due 6/29/15. A status hearing is set for 7/8/15 at 9:00a.m. (6:35) Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 4/20/2015. Mailed notice (cc, ) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
 Down Load PDF of This Case
© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8478 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives