United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion  to
dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint  for
lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. For
the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion  is
granted. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to
establish that the Court has jurisdiction over this suit.
Plaintiff shall be given until April 7, 2017 to file a Third
Amended Complaint. To survive dismissal, the Third Amended
Complaint must either: 1) allege a viable federal claim under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(“RESPA”), which would give the Court federal
question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's lawsuit and allow
the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
(“ICFA”); or 2) demonstrate that the amount in
controversy in this suit is at least $75, 000 and that there
is complete diversity among the parties. Defendant shall have
until March 24, 2017 to file a statement with the Court
identifying all the citizenship information necessary to
determine whether complete diversity exists, as explained
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the ICFA by depriving him of his home
without due process. Plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen
of Illinois, that Defendant is “a company incorporated
in the state of Delaware, ”  at 1, that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75, 000, and therefore that the Court
has diversity jurisdiction over his claims.
1987, Plaintiff's family purchased a four-unit apartment
building located at 6522 N. Richmond Street in Chicago (the
“Property”). Plaintiff lives (or lived) in the
Property with his elderly mother, his brothers, their
spouses, and their thirteen minor children. There was a
mortgage on the Property, held by lender Taylor Bean &
2007, following months of illness, Plaintiff was admitted to
the hospital and underwent multiple surgeries on his brain
and back. Due to his illness, Plaintiff lost his family
business and defaulted on his mortgage.
sought to modify the mortgage through the federal Home
Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). In
March 2009, Plaintiff filed an application for modification
with Taylor Bean & Whitaker. The application contained an
“actual budget” and an “affordable proposed
budget.”  at 5. In 2010, Taylor Bean & Whitaker
went out of business and Defendant took over the mortgage.
Plaintiff submitted two applications for modification to
Defendant in 2010 and 2011 but did not receive any response
October 12, 2012, the Cook County Circuit Court entered a
judgment of foreclosure against Plaintiff and ordered the
November 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed another HAMP application
for modification with Defendant. This application showed a
total household income of $6382.00 and was supported by pay
stubs, tax returns, and government issued benefits letters.
Plaintiff alleges that throughout this process, he “was
told by [Defendant's] representatives not to worry,
‘[Defendant] has an in-house program that qualifies
homeowners based on their income.'”  at 6.
Plaintiff “relied on [this] information” and
“spent a large sum of his family's savings
remodeling portion[s] of the property.” Id.
September 20, 2013, Plaintiff received a letter from
Defendant informing him that he did not qualify for a loan
modification because his “$2488.18 household income is
outside the range of required income.” Id.
Plaintiff complained to the Illinois and Florida Attorneys
General. On October 17, 2013, Defendant requested that
Plaintiff fill out a new application with supporting
documents. Defendant insisted that the application must be
completed by the next day. This deadline was impossible for
Plaintiff to meet because the application involved several
families. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff submitted a new HAMP
application and supporting documents to Defendant on October,
2013, showing a verified monthly income of $6766.00.
October 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed an emergency motion in the
Cook County Circuit Court seeking to stay the sale of the
Property. Defendant voluntarily stopped the sale. The judge
did not, as Plaintiff had expected, question Defendant about
why it had rejected Plaintiff's HAMP applications.
Id. at 7.
January 17, 2014, Plaintiff received an email from an
employee of Defendant, Andre South, asking to verify his
mother's address. South wrote to Plaintiff: “George
the file looks good. We can get your income cleared if we
resolve this one missing document[.]”  at 7.
obtained a state identification card for his mother and
verified her address with Defendant. Id. at 7-8.
February 7, 2014, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant
denying his HAMP application on the basis that his total
gross income, which Defendant verified as $2, 497.90, was not
high enough to make Plaintiff eligible for HAMP. Id.
at 8. On February 10, 2016, the Cook County Circuit Court
approved the sale of the Property and the Property was sold.
See  at 8. Plaintiff is pursuing an appeal of the order
approving sale in the Illinois ...