Corey D. Richmond v. Equity Prime Mortgage and Midland Mortgage

Richmond · United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division · March 3, 2026 · No. No. 25 CV 13443

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois struck Plaintiff Corey D. Richmond’s amended complaint because it was filed without consent or leave of court. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, holding that the claims under 12 U.S.C. § 503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1005 did not state viable claims against the named bank defendants. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims for unjust enrichment and fraudulent conversion and allowed the plaintiff until March 24, 2026, to file another amended complaint.

Holdings

  1. The amended complaint was properly stricken because plaintiff filed it outside the twenty-one-day period for amendment as of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B), without defendants' written consent and without seeking leave of court under Rule 15(a)(2).
  2. Count I failed to state a claim because § 503, as relevant here, imposes personal and individual liability on directors and officers, while the complaint named only banks and no individual defendants.
  3. Count II failed to state a claim because 18 U.S.C. § 1005 does not create a separate cause of action; an alleged violation must instead be pursued through 12 U.S.C. § 503, which also failed to support Count I.
  4. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff's amended complaint should be stricken because it was filed outside the period for amendment as of right and without defendants' consent or leave of court.
  2. Whether 12 U.S.C. § 503 provides a claim against defendant banks when the statute imposes liability on directors and officers in their personal and individual capacities.
  3. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1005 creates a private cause of action independent of 12 U.S.C. § 503.
  4. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Virnich v. Vorwald, 664 F.3d 206, 212 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Alam v. Miller Brewing Co., 709 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • White v. Keely, 814 F.3d 883, 888 (7th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Panther Brands, LLC v. Indy Racing League, LLC, 827 F.3d 586, 589 (7th Cir. 2016)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…