United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
W. GETTLEMAN United States District Judge.
JP Morgan Chase Bank brought this foreclosure action against
defendant Lindsay Jenkins, the mortgagor of certain
residential property. Plaintiff filed the instant motion
(doc. 90) for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56,
contending that no genuine issue of material fact exists and
that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff
also filed a motion (doc. 100) to appoint a special
commissioner in the event that its motion for summary
judgment is granted. In addition, plaintiff filed a motion
(doc. 101) for default judgment and a motion (doc. 102) for
entry of a judgment of foreclosure and sale as to defendants
30 East Huron Condominium Association, Unknown and Non-Record
Claimants, and Unknown Occupants. Defendant subsequently
filed a motion (doc. 111) to strike plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment, a Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) affidavit (doc.
109), and a second motion (doc. 116) to dismiss.
reasons discussed below, the court grants plaintiff’s
motions for summary judgment and to appoint a special
commissioner and denies defendant’s motion to strike
and dismiss. In light of the fact that the remaining
defendants have not answered the complaint, the court also
grants plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.
Local Rule 56.1 Statements
the court relies on the parties’ Local Rule 56.1
statements and responses to summarize the undisputed facts
before the court. However, neither defendant’s
responses to plaintiff’s 56.1 statements nor her
“counterstatement” comply with the court’s
local rule. As an initial matter, defendant’s responses
do not contain “a concise summary of the paragraph to
which it is directed, ” as required by L.R.
importantly, defendant’s denials are not supported by
“specific references” to admissible evidence.
L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(b); see also McGuire v. United Parcel
Serv., 152 F.3d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 1998) (“An
answer that does not deny the allegations in the numbered
paragraph with citations to supporting evidence in the record
constitutes an admission.”). For example, defendant
denies, without any citation to supporting evidence, that she
has defaulted on her monthly mortgage payments.
Defendant’s sporadic references to her
“counterstatement” and the “attached
exhibit” do not qualify as specific references to
supporting materials. See Richards v. Combined Ins. Co.
of America, 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995) (“It
is not our task, or that of the district court, to scour the
record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. We rely
on the nonmoving party to identify with reasonable
particularity the evidence that precludes summary
judgment.”). As such, the court deems each of
plaintiff’s material facts undisputed.
counterstatement, traditionally known as a statement of
additional facts, does not fare any better. As plaintiff
points out, most of defendant’s additional statements
of fact are not facts at all, but arguments and legal
conclusions. See Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc. v.
Synergex Corp., No. 12-C-8483, 2014 WL 518085, at *1
(N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2014) (“[T]he purpose of Local Rule
56.1 statements and responses is to identify the relevant
admissible evidence supporting the material facts, not to
make factual or legal arguments.”). The court,
therefore, will not consider these additional statements.
only material defendant cites in support of her denials of
plaintiff’s 56.1 statement of facts and
counterstatement is a report entitled “Property
Securitization Analysis Report” that is authored by
Michael Carrigan, who identifies himself as a
“Certified Mortgage Securitization Auditor.” The
report, however, is undated, unsigned, and unsworn, and thus
is not admissible to oppose summary judgment. See Wittmer
v. Peters, 87 F.3d 916, 917 (7th Cir. 1996) (stating
that unsworn statements are not admissible to support or
oppose summary judgment); see also Estate of Williams v.
Indiana State Police, 26 F.Supp.3d 824, 837 (S.D. Ind.
2014) (“It is well settled that unsworn statements,
including expert reports, are inadmissible to support or
oppose summary judgment.”). Even if the report was
admissible (it is not), as discussed in more detail below, it
does not advance defendant’s position.
August 19, 2005, defendant entered into a mortgage and note
with Washington Mutual Bank, FA (“WaMu”), secured
by property located at 30 E. Huron Street #4406, Chicago,
Illinois 60611. The note required defendant to make monthly
payments beginning on October 1, 2005. Defendant also agreed,
as a part of the note, to pay taxes, insurance and any other
escrow items that applied. The note was endorsed in blank by
defaulted on her monthly mortgage payments under the terms of
the note and mortgage by failing to pay the monthly mortgage
payments as they became due beginning in January 2008.
Pursuant to a Purchase and Assumption Agreement between the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”)
and plaintiff, plaintiff became the owner of all the loans
and loan commitments of WaMu, including defendant’s
mortgage loan, on September 25, 2008. As of January 6, 2016,
the outstanding amount due on the loan, excluding attorney
fees and costs associated with the foreclosure and litigation
in this case, was $294, 484.44.
discussed above, since plaintiff moved for summary judgment,
defendant has filed a motion to strike plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment, a Rule 56(d) affidavit, and a
second motion to dismiss. The court denies both motions and,
in its discretion, declines to exercise its powers pursuant
to Rule 56(d)(1) or (2).
argues that the court should strike plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment for failure to comply with Local Rule
56.2. Defendant, however, does not articulate how plaintiff
has failed to comply with the rule. Local Rule 56.2 requires
a party moving for summary judgment against a pro se litigant
to “serve and file as a separate document, together
with the papers in support of the motion, a ‘notice to
pro se litigant opposing motion for summary judgment’
in the form indicated” by the rule. A review of
plaintiff’s motion makes clear that plaintiff did in
fact comply with Local Rule 56.2. As required by the rule,