The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff BankFirst's motion for partial summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, we grant BankFirst's motion for partial summary judgment.
Bankfirst alleges that it is a residential mortgage lender that originates and services residential mortgage loans. BankFirst purportedly entered into an agreement ("Broker Agreement") with Defendant Mortgage Direct, Inc. ("Mortgage Direct"), whereby Mortgage Direct, through Defendant Jose A. Soto ("Soto"), a loan officer at Mortgage Direct, agreed to act as a broker to assist a borrower named Annelsa M. Melchiorre ("Melchiorre") with a mortgage loan through BankFirst. According to BankFirst, Soto concocted a scheme to use Melchiorre's credit to purchase an investment property ("Subject Property") with funds provided by Soto. BankFirst alleges that Soto promised to pay Melchiorre $5,000.00 in exchange for her involvement in the scheme. According to BankFirst, on April 21, 2006, Melchiorre purchased the Subject Property for the sum of $1,350,000.00 and Mortgage Direct submitted a falsified loan application and other documents in order to obtain two mortgage loans from BankFirst. Subsequent to the closing, both mortgages allegedly fell into default due to nonpayment. BankFirst claims that it later discovered that the value of the Subject Property had been misrepresented along with Melchiorre's financial qualifications. According to BankFirst, it has suffered damages as a result of Melchiorre's default on the second mortgage, and is required to indemnify Citibank, the assignee of the first mortgage, for the losses Citibank incurred as a result of Melchiorre's default on the first mortgage. BankFirst brought the instant action and includes a claim for breach of contract brought against Mortgage Direct (Count I), and a claim for civil conspiracy brought against all Defendants (Count II). BankFirst now moves for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim in Count I.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, reveals that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In seeking a grant of summary judgment the moving party must identify "those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). This initial burden may be satisfied by presenting specific evidence on a particular issue or by pointing out "an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case." Id. at 325. Once the movant has met this burden, the non-moving party cannot simply rest on the allegations in the pleadings, but, "by affidavits or as otherwise provided for in [Rule 56], must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). A "genuine issue" in the context of a motion for summary judgment is not simply a "metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, a genuine issue of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Insolia v. Philip Morris, Inc., 216 F.3d 596, 599 (7th Cir. 2000). The court must consider the record as a whole, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences that favor the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Bay v. Cassens Transport Co., 212 F.3d 969, 972 (7th Cir. 2000).
BankFirst moves for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim arguing that the undisputed facts establish that Mortgage Direct breached its contractual obligations in the Broker Agreement between BankFirst and Mortgage Direct.
Along with its motion for summary judgment, BankFirst properly included a statement of material facts, pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(a)(3). Local Rule 56.1 also requires a party opposing summary judgment to submit "a concise response" to the moving party's statement of facts including "references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." L.R. 56.1(b)(3). Mortgage Direct has not filed any such statement. Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, any material fact within the moving party's Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts that is not properly denied is deemed to be undisputed. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C)(stating that "[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party"); see also Martino v. MCI Communications Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 2157170, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 2008)(stating that a "[c]court may disregard statements and responses that do not properly cite to the record"); Dent v. Bestfoods, 2003 WL 22025008, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ill. 2003)(indicating that a denial is improper if the denial is not accompanied by specific references to admissible evidence or portions of the record representing admissible evidence). Courts are not "obliged in [the] adversary system to scour the record looking for factual disputes and may adopt local rules reasonably designed to streamline the resolution of summary judgment motions." Walridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920, 922 (7th Cir. 1994). Thus, all of the statements contained in BankFirst's Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts are deemed to be undisputed for the purposes of the instant motion. Local Rule 56.1; Dent, 2003 WL 22025008, at *1 n.1.
II. Mortgage Direct's Responsive Brief
The court also notes that, in Mortgage Direct's opposition brief to the motion for partial summary judgment, Mortgage Direct has not included any argument or legal support on the issue of Mortgage Direct's liability for breach of contract. Mortgage Direct has instead filed less than one page of argument referencing the fact that BankFirst was under a duty to mitigate its damages and arguing that BankFirst should have done so by filing an appearance in the foreclosure action against the Subject Property. As discussed below, one of the elements of a claim for breach of contract under Illinois law is a demonstration of damages by the plaintiff. Association Ben. Servs., Inc., v. Caremark RX, Inc., 493 F.3d 841, 849 (7th Cir. 2007). However, Mortgage Direct's responsive brief does not argue or support the fact that BankFirst suffered zero damages, but rather states in a conclusory fashion that BankFirst should have mitigated its damages. As such, Mortgage Direct's entire responsive brief fails to address the issue of Mortgage Direct's liability on the breach of contract claim. BankFirst did not move for summary judgment on damages. Thus, the only issue the court need address ...