FIFTH DIVISION Decem ber 14, 2007

No. 1-07- 2035 CHB UPTOWN PROPERTIES, LLC, a Del aware Li mi ted ) Liabil ity C ompany ; and CHB FINANCIAL PLACE, LLC, ) a D ela wa r e L imit ed Lia bilit y Co mp an y, ) Appeal from the ) Cir cu it Co ur t o f Plai ntif fs-Appel lees, ) Coo k C oun ty ) v. ) ) FI NANC I AL P LAC E AP ART ME NT S, LL C, an I llino is ) Li mi ted Liabil ity Compan y;and A NTOIN REZKO, ) ) De f en da n ts- A pp el l an ts ) Ho no r ab le

) Barbara A . McDonald, (Dan i el Mah ru, ) Judge Presidin g. ) Def endan t). ) JU STI CEO’ MA

RA FR OS SA RDde l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Defe ndan ts Antoin Rezko and Fi

nan ci al Plac e Apartme

nts appeal the trial court order wh ich de nie d t he irmo t io n t o st ay t he ins t an t pr o ce ed ing s in t he cir cu it co ur t o f Co o k C o un t y. In su pp ort of th ei r c on ten ti on th at th e c our t er re d b y re f us i n g to stay th e proc ee di

n gs , de f en da n ts
ar gu e t he fo llo win g: ( 1) Re zk o is u nd er fed er al ind ict men t an d a st ay is ne ce ss ar y t o pr o t ec t his fi fth am endm ent righ ts; (2) Rezko wil

l b e severel

y prejudic ed wi

thout a stay;(3) a stay wi ll further t he pu blic int er es t an d p r o mo t e ju di cia l ef fic ien cy; ( 4) pl ain t iffs wil l no t be un du ly p r eju di ce d b y a st ay; (5 ) a st ay is app ro pr iate beca use t he su bject of t he inst ant lawsu it and t he su bject of t he fed er al ind ict men t o ve r lap ; ( 6) a s t ay is jus t ified ev en t ho ug h t he go ve rnme nt is no t a p ar t y t o t his1-07-2035

2

la wsui t; and (7) thi s case sh

ould be stayed aga

in st Fin anci al Plac e becaus e wi

thout Rezko’s i

nput
an d a ss ist an ce , Fina nc ial P lac e is po we r les s t o pr es en t a d efe nse . We ad dr es s e ac h a r gu men t in turn . We re

vi ew the tri al cou rt’ s den i al of the moti on to s

tay un der th e a buse of di screti on stan dard. Kaden v. Pucinski , 263 Il l . Ap p. 3d 61 1, 612 ( 1994)
. BACK GROUND A f edera l gran d j ury returned two i

ndi ctmen ts aga i nst Rezk o in the F edera

l Di strict Court f or the Northern

Di strict of Il

l i noi s on O ctober 5 , 2006. I n Uni ted S tat es v. Rezko, No. 06 CR 07 29 ( N. D. I ll. 2 00 6) , Re zk o is c ha r ge d w it h p ar t icip at ing in asc he me t o de fr au d a nd t o o bt ain
ove r $ 10 milli

on d ollar s in loans fro m GE C apit al Co rp or at ion ( Lo an Fr aud Case ). A sup er sed ing in dictment added al

le gations regardi

ng Rezko’s s

ham purchases

and transactions to defraud GE Capi tal corporation an

d na med an addi tion al def endan t, Al i Ata. Th i s ca se is pendi

ng b ef ore Uni ted States D i strict Judg e Ja mes Z agel

as of the date the

opi ni on i n the i nstant ca se was f

i l ed. In Uni ted St ates v. Levi

ne, No. 06 CR 0691 (supersedi ng i ndi ctmen t ret urned October 5, 200 6) , R ezk o is c har ged wit h a sc heme t o d efra ud t he bene ficiaries o f the Te ache r’s Ret irement Sy ste m (TR S) o f th e S tate of Il l i n oi s th rough sol i ci tati on an d r ec ei pt of ki ck b acksan d p ay men ts for the benefi

t o f Rezko and ot hers from i nvestmen t firm s seekin g to do business wi

th the TRS (Pu b l i c C orru

pti on Ca se ). Th i s c as e is s et f

or tri al b ef oreUn i ted Sta tes Distr i ct J udge A m y St. Eve on Feb

ruary 25, 2008. In the i nstant ca se, the two-coun t comp l ai nt ag ai nst Fi na nc i al Pl ace , Rez

ko and Ma

hru alle ges that Fi

nan ci al Plac e defa

ulted on a l

oan m odif ic ation agreem

ent (Agreem

ent) and Rezko
an d M ah ru i n di v i du al l y b re ach ed a g ua ra n tee ag re em en t (G ua ra n tee ) w i th pl ai n ti f f b y f ai l i n g to1-07-2035

3

pa y Fi n an ci al Pl ac e’ s i n de b ted n es s a n d th e c ost s of col l ecti n g on th e A gr eemen t. M ah ru i s n ot a party to the i nstant ap peal
. Pl ai n ti f f s a rel i m i ted l i ab i l i ty com pa n i es th at l oan ed Fi n an ci al Pl ac e $ 3,2 50 ,00 0 pur suan

t to a promi ssory n

ot e. The loan was guaranteed b y R ezko and Mah

ru, the two me

mb ers of Fi

nan ci al Place , u nder a gu ar ant y of pa yment. The par t ies, o n Janu ar y 1, 2 005 , e nt er ed int o a sec ond amende d and re st at ed lo an mod ifi cat ion ag re ement in which Rez ko and M ahr u r at ifi ed a nd af f i rm ed the term s of the gua ran ty of pa y men t. Pl ai nti f f s, on Ju ne 7, 2 005 , broug

ht th i s acti on f or b re ach of con tract w h en Re zk o, M ah ru an d F i n an ci al Pl ac e f ai l ed to m ake p ay men ts. De f en da n ts Rezko and Fi

nan ci al Plac e m oved for a stay

on April 25, 2007. Rez ko ar gue d t hat wit hou t a st ay pend ing t he o ut co me of his fede ra l criminal cases, he
wo uld be fo rc ed t o c hoo se be t wee n his fif t h amendment pr ivil

ege aga inst s elf-incriminatio n and t he r isk o f lo sing his c ivil ca se sho uld he ch o o se t o invo ke his fift h a men dme nt r igh t t o r ema in sile nt. Fi nan ci al Plac e recognized that a busi ness entity enj oys n o fi fth am endm ent priv il ege, but
argu ed i t cou l d n ot “moun t a def ense i n th i s l i ti ga ti on b ec au se [Rez ko] wi l l i n v oke b oth th e f i f th
am endm en t and wil l be una va i l ab l e to ai d [Fi

na nc i al Pl ace ’s ] def

en se.” Af ter hearin g oral argum

ent, the trial

court deni

ed the stay f

or t he f oll owing reas ons: (1) t her e wa s no co mmonality o f subject matt er beca use t he civil and cr imi nal act ions “d o no t involve the s am e tran sactions or the

sam e parti es, othe r than of c ourse M

r. Rez ko”; (2) b oth acti

ons were not brought by the govern me nt; (3) the posture o f the cri mi nal proceedin

g refl ects that crim

in al indict ment is “o n a t ot ally dif fere nt matt er ”; ( 4) a likelihoo d o f wro ngdo ing o r c ont inuing
wr o ng do ing is o nly o ne fac t o ro f t he pu blic in t er es t inq uir y; ( 5) t he int er es t o f t he pla int iffs in1-07-2035

4

expedi tious litigation wei

ghs agai nst a stay ; an

d (6) there is n

o fraud clai

m b ut, rat her, a strict breach of contract alleged and n o evi dence h

as been presented that the governm ent pla ns to in dict Re zk o fo ro t he rfina nc ial d ea ling s t ha t o ve r lap wit h t his c ivil pr o ce ed ing , ac co r din gly, Re zk o is not prejudiced becaus e his f if th ame ndm ent righ ts are not im

pli cated. Defen

dants f il ed thei r notice of i nterlocutory appeal

on Jul y 20, 2007. AN

AL YSIS The right agai

nst self-i ncri mi nation i s one of the m

ost fundam

ental righ ts under the Constitution of the U

ni ted St ates. A party has the right to in voke hi s f if th ame ndm ent priv il ege when invo lvement in a c ivil cas e may for ce him to involunt ar ily disclo se infor matio n t hat co uld be
use d to im

pli cate h i m cri m i na l l y . People ex rel. Hartigan v. Kafka & Sons Buildi ng & Supply Co. , 252 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 11 5, 119 ( 1993)
. 10-Dix Building Corp. v. McDannel , 134 Ill . App. 3d 664, 67 2 (198 5). In de term i ni ng the propriety of a s tay , th e c ourt m

ay consi der f ac tors i nc l udi ng , but not lim ited t o t he fo llowing: (1 ) t he po st ur e o f the cr imi nal pr oc eed ing; (2 ) t he inte re st s o f and bur dens on d ef endan t, in cl udi ng th e ex tent to whi

ch def endan t’s f i f th am endm en t rig hts a re im pli cated if a stay is deni

ed; (3) the ef

fect on the publ

ic in terests at stake if

a stay were i

ssued; ( 4) t he pla int iff’s int er es t in e xp ed it io us r es o lut io n o f t he civ il ca se an d a ny p r eju dic e t o pla int iff in not pro ceedi

ng; (5) wh

ether the crim

in al and ci vi l a ctions i nvol ve the sam

e subj ect matter; and (6) whether both acti ons were brought by the governm

ent. See Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovak , 326 Ill . App. 3d 1131, 1136 (2002). A court ma y a ls o t ake i nto considerati on the need to man age i ts docket and

the e f f i cien t use of i ts j udicial resourc es. Jacksonville Savings Bank , 326 Ill . App.1-07-2035

5

3d at 11 36. The party see ki ng th e stay ha s the bur den of provi ng a dequate j ustif

i cation f or it. Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc. , 213 Ill. App . 3 d 59 1, 595 (1 991 ). The issue in t he i nstant ca se is wh

ethe r the tri al court ab use d i ts di scre tion i n de ny i ng d ef endan ts’ m otion f or a stay of proceed

i ngs . Kaden v

. Pucins ki, 263 Il l . Ap p. 3d 61 1, 612 ( 1994)
. A . D ef en da n t Rezk o’ s F i f th A men dm en t Ri gh ts Defend ant s ar gue t hat beca use Rez ko is unde r fed er al indictment , a st ay is neces sar y and ap pr o pr iat e t o pr o t ec t Re zk o ’s fift h a men dme nt r igh t s. De fen da nt s c o nt en d t ha t “[ i]f a civ il proce ed i n g m i gh t un derm i n e a pa rty ’s f i f th am en dm en t ri gh ts, de f er ri n g th at proc ee di

n g is b oth ‘n ece ssa ry and wi se,’ and a trial

court sh oul d gi ve thi s f actor sub stan

tia l wei ght.” In support o f thi

s argum ent, defen dants rel y on two cases i

nvol vi ng Rezko i

n wh ic h procee di ngs ha ve be en stay ed. In Pa pa Jo hns I nt er na t io na l, I nc . v. Re zk o , No
. 04 C 3 13 1, slip op. at 1 (Ma

rch 2, 2007 ) (Papa Johns ) Un it ed S t at es Dis t r ict Ju dg e M o r an , in g r an t ing t he st ay, noted that “the two [civ

il and cri mi nal ] actions, i

n sub stantial

respects, in

volv e the sam e subj ect
matte r.” How ev er , i n th e i n sta n t ca se , the rec ord

re f l ects th e f ederal i n di ctm en ts a reun re l ate d to the ci vi l c ontract case at is sue. T he se co nd ca se invo lving Re zk o r elie d u po n by d efe nd an t s is Ma ss uda v. Re zko, Case No. 06 L 3510 ( Ci r. Ct. Cook Co.) (

Massuda ), whi ch i s pendi ng i n the ci rcuit court. The stay
re gar ding Re zko in the Massuda ca se is ba se d o n t he sig nific an t o ve r lap be t we en t he iss ue s in Massuda and the issues i

n the cri mi nal Loan Fraud Cas e pendi

ng i n f ederal court . This

overlap was recogni

zed i n the Massuda ca se

b y Judg e B ur

ke i n h i s M arch

28 , 20 07 , ord

er wh i ch re f l ects1-07-2035

6

th at “ th e a l l eg ati on s of th i s i n di ctm en t [th e L oan Fr aud C as e] h av

e b een i n cor porate d i n to Plai ntif f’s Second Am

ended Complai

nt, specifi call y pages 8-9, and Count V III ( fraud against Rez ko ), pag es 2 8- 31. ” I nco rp or at ing t he allega t ions fr om t he fede ra l indictment into t he se co nd amende d co mplaint as not ed in Ju dge Bur ke’ s o rd er cr eat ed “a significant o ver lap bet wee n t he crim in al case an d case sub judice .” I n t he inst an t ca se , pla int iffs’ co nt r ac t co mpla int ag ain st de fen da nt s is co mple t ely unrelated to the enti

ties or transactions i

n the f ederal cases. The tri al

court considered whether t her e wa s any o ver lap bet wee n t he fede ra l cases and t he inst ant co nt ra ct cas e. Base d o n t he
re co rd , w e find no abus e o f discr et ion by t he circ uit co ur t ’s de t er minatio n t hat t her e wa s no
ove rlap and, acc or dingly, no dang er of a fif t h amendment violat ion. B. Rezko Will

Not be Severel

y Prej udic ed Wi

thout a Stay Defend ant s ar gue t hat “Rezk o ha s alre ady indicat ed in his low er -c ou rt fil ings t hat he bel ie ves i t may be appropriate to assert his F if th Am endm ent righ ts to the alle gations i

n thi s case.” However, the record refle cts no reason why Rezko’s asse

rtion of h is fi fth am endm ent priv il ege
wo uld be pr o pe r . T he r ec o r d d o es no t r efle ct ho w R ez ko ’s t es t imo ny in o r al d isc o ve ry wo uld in crim in ate hi m. Moreover, the governm ent, at either the state or federal l evel, has dem

onstrated
no int er es t in t he inst an t ca se . T he go ve rnme nt ha s no t so ug ht t o int er ve ne o rat t emp t ed t o ga in access to any

dis covery res

ponses f rom plai ntif fs or any other source. Base d o n ou r r eview o f the re co rd , t he circ uit co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion.

C. Promote Publi

c’s Interest and Judi

ci al Eff ic ie ncy We are m in dful that t he ci

rcuit court acknowledged that there was “ no reason” to fi

nd that1-07-2035

7

the kin d of publ ic harm contempl ated by la w would occur if

the stay were gran

ted and concl

uded that t hi s f actor “weighs i

n f avor of the stay .” Accordin gly , this issue i s not in

dis pute. Defend ant s fur t her ar gue t hat a st ay will pro mot e judicial efficiency by eli minating t he dupli cation of “eff

ort s of b ot h the parties

and the Court” and by

elim in ating a drain on judi ci al
re so ur ces if repe at ed c hallenges t o R ezk o’ s fifth amend ment a rg ument s nee d be a djud icat ed. The record do es not disc lose that any dis covery w

hich overl aps wi th the federal

crim in al cases h as be en r eq ue st ed in t he inst an t ca se . Ac co r din gly, t he r ec o r d d o es no t r efle ct jud icia l re so ur ce s w ill be drain ed or judi cial eff ici ency im pacted by deny

in g a stay of the pro ceedings. D. Pr eju dic ial I mpa ct o f St ay o n P laint iffs Defend ant s ar gue t hat “[w] hile a plaintiff cer t ainly has an inte re st in exped itio us litiga t ion, this reason alone has s

peci fi cally and repeatedl

y b een h el d in suf fi ci ent to deny a stay .” That
ar gument igno re s t he fact t hat while the t rial co ur t co nsider ed t he inte re st of p laintiffs in the in stant case i

n ex pedi tious litigation, that in

terest was just one of sev eral f actors which

supported th e dec i si on to de n y a stay. Th

e c our t di d n ot re l y on th at rea son

al on e b ut, ra th er , took i n to
co nsider at ion var iou s fact or s as a rt iculat ed in it s ru ling afte r he ar ing o ra l arg ument re gar ding t he i ssue of stay i ng th e proce edi

ngs . Defe ndan ts further argued that “[c]ontinui ng f in anci al dam age i s si mpl y n ot a uni que enough i nj ury to overcome a def

endan t’s in terest in the f

undam ental Constitutional

priv il ege ag ai n st s el f -i n cri m i n ati on .”The rec ord

re f l ects th e tr i al cou rt g av e prop er con si dera ti on to defend ant Rez ko ’s fund ament al Co nst itu t ional pr ivil ege aga inst s elf-incriminatio n, bu t fou nd no fi fth am endm ent concerns b ecause the ci vi l a nd f ederal crim in al cases were un

related.1-07-2035

8 E. Subject Matt er Overl

ap Defe ndan ts argue the subj ect matter of the in stant case and the f

ederal crim in al cases
ov erl ap s. In

su pp ort of th at a rgum en t, d ef en da n ts c on ten d th at i t i s “ moreth an a m ere p oss i b i l i ty that Rezko’s testim

ony regardi

ng hi s busi ness practices i

n conn ection wi th this case could be used agai nst hi m by the g overn

men t, ei ther i n i ts i nv esti gation or at tri al .” The ci rcuit court rejected the argumen t by de fen dants that there was a connection between t he inst ant cas e and t he fede ra l criminal cases. The re co rd sup po rt s t hat co nclusio n. T he inst ant case i nvol ves pl ai ntif fs ’ al le gation of b

reach of c ontract by

defen dants. The i ssue i

n the Loan Fraud Case i

s whether Rez

ko made m

is representations, cause d documen ts to be created and us ed sha m co r po r at io ns t o de fr au d G E Ca pit al C o r po r at io n. T he ind ict men t in t he Lo an Fr au d C as e in no way refers to any of the plain tiff s in the instant case, t he corpo rate d efendan t in the in stant case
or t he co nt ra ct bet wee n plaint iff s and defend ant s. M or eo ver , t he inst ant cas e do es no t involve GE Capi tal Corporat ion or Rezko Enterprises . The Publ ic Corrupt ion C ase i s si

mi la rly unrelated. Defend ant s fur t her ar gue t hat t he t rial co ur t ’s de t er minatio n t hat t he Lo an Fr aud Case and the in stant case were unrel

ated “colored the court’s” anal ys is of the other factors to be consi dered in determi ni ng the i ssue of wh

ether a stay s

hould b e granted. The record does not support t hat
argu men t. Rath er , the rec ord

re f l ects th e c i rc ui t cou rt g av e c aref ul con si dera ti on to ap propri ate f actors i n de ny i ng th e stay. F. Sta y Ju sti f i ed Even Thoug h Gov er n men t IsNot a Pa rty De f en da n ts a rgue th at “ th e tr i al cou rt i gn ore d en ti re l y th e n um erous ca se s i n wh i ch cou rts have g ra nt ed s t ays even w her e t he go ver nment w as no t a pa rt y to t he civil pro cee ding. ” I n t he1-07-2035

9

fact ual co nt ext of t he inst ant cas e, t he r eco rd re flect s t he t rial co ur t co nsider ed t he fact t hat t he go ve rnme nt wa s no t a p ar t y t o t he inst an t ca se . T ha t fac t wa s o ne o f se ve r al fa ct o r s p r o pe r ly
cons i dered

by the tri al court i n de ny i ng th e stay. G. No Er ror in Den

yi ng Stay to Fi

nan ci al Plac e Defe ndan ts argue that t he case

should be “ stayed as

agai nst Fi nan ci al Plac e as wel

l as Re zk o b ec au se wi th out R ez ko’ s i n pu t an d a ss i sta n ce , F i n an ci al Pl ac e is p owe

rles s to pr es en

t a defens e in this c ivil

matt er .” In su ppo rt of t hat ar gument , d efenda nt s re ly upo n t he fo llowing
cas es. United Sta tes v. All Mea t & Poultr y Pro ducts , No 02 C 5 145 (O ctober 3 , 2003) ; American Express Busines s Finance Cor

p. v. RW Professional Leasing Services Corp. , 22 5 F. Supp. 2 d 263, 2 65-66(2002 ); Volmar Distributors , Inc. v. New Y

ork Post Co. , 152 F.R.D. 36, 41 (S.D.N.Y . 1993) ; Bruner Corp. v. Balogh , 819 F . Supp. 8 11, 816 (E.D. W i s. 199 3). We

are mindful that in tho se c ase s co rp or at e de fendant s have been a ble to obt ain a st ay beca use t he crim in al and ci vi l m atter s overl apped. However, in the factual context of the i nstant case, we do not find the abo ve- not ed c ase s inst ru ct ive. U nlike t he ca ses r elied up on by de fendant s, in t he i nstant ca se, there is n

o overl ap or si m i l ari ty of i ssu es b etween the ci

vi l and cri m i na l cas es. CONCLUSION It is not dispu t ed by t he pa rt ies t hat in det er mini ng whe t her t o g ra nt a st ay the follow ing fact or s ar e t o be co nsider ed: (1 ) t he po st ur e o f the cr imi nal pr oc eed ing; (2 ) t he inte re st s o f and bur dens on d ef endan ts, i nc l udi ng th e ex tent to whi

ch def endan ts’ f i f th am endm en t rig hts a re im pli cated if a stay is deni

ed; (3) the ef

fect on the publ

ic in terests at stake if

a stay were i

ssued; ( 4) t he pla int iff’s int er es t in e xp ed it io us r es o lut io n o f t he civ il ca se an d a ny p r eju dic e t o pla int iff in1-07-2035

10

not pro ceedi

ng; (5) wh

ether the crim

in al and ci vi l a ctions i nvol ve the sam

e subj ect matter; and (6) whether both acti ons were brought by the governm

ent. See Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovak , 326 Il l . Ap p. 3d 11 31, 113 6 (200 2). Ba se d on our rev i ew of the rec ord, wecon

cl ude the trial cou rt ga ve prop er c ons i derati

on t o a ppr op riat e fact or s in denying t he st ay. T her e wa s no abus e o f discr et ion. Fo r t he r eas ons pr eviou sly discuss ed, we a ffi rm t he t rial co ur t ’s de cision a nd o rd er on J une 2 9, 200 7, denying defendan ts’ motion to stay the pro ceedings. Af fi rmed. FITZ GERA

LD SM ITH, P.J., a

nd G AL LAGHER , J., con

cur.1-07-2035

11