(4) in class action suits, one or more of the classes involved in the cases is or are
of the same.

LR 40.4(a). Once relatedness is established, the case or cases may be reassigned if all
four of the following criteria are met: (1) both cases are pending in this court; (2)
reassignment will result in substantial saving of judicial resources; (3) reassignment will
not cause a substantial delay; and (4) it is possible for disposition of both cases in a single
proceeding. LR 40.4(b).

The present case meets the requirement of LR 40.4(a) for relatedness. It is
undisputed that both cases involve some of the same issues of law. Plaintiffs in both
cases allege that Loan Arranger, in procuring a mortgage loan for each plaintiff,
overstated the amount financed and understated the finance charge in violation of TILA
and ICFA. Thus, any resolution of both disputes will necessarily require a determination
of the legality of the same defendants’ actions under the same statutes and regulations.
What’s more, the rule does not require complete identity of issues in order for cases to be
considered related. See, e.g., Fairbanks Capital Corp. v. Jenkins, No. 02 C 3930, 2002
WL 31655277, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 25, 2002). Finally, the Murry Class B, all those who
procured loans through Loan Arranger, includes the entire Greenleaf class.

The present case also satisfies the requirements of LR 40.4(b). There is no
question that the first of these requirements has been met because both of these cases are
pending before this Court. The second requirement under LR 40.4(b) has been met as
well because reassignment of the Greenleaf case to this Court’s docket will result in
substantial time savings and promote judicial economy. With the reassignment of

Greenleaf, only one judge will need to rule on the dispositive motions filed by defendants

4


is a putative class action brought by a plaintiff against defendants BWM Mortgage, LLC
(“BWM”), Lenders Network USA, Inc., Clearwater Title Co., The Loan Arranger, Inc.,
Michael Robins, and five John Doe defendants. Ms. Greenleaf hired Loan Arranger to
act as a mortgage loan broker. On or about September 11, 2002, Loan Arranger arranged
for such a loan from BWM that was to be secured by the plaintiff's household residence.
Not unlike the Murrys, Greenleaf now alleges that Loan Arranger understated the
finance charge amount and overstated the amount financed. On a Truth In Lending
Statement received from BWM, there are charges in the amount of $540 to Lakeshore
and $800 to Clearwater, both for title insurance. Ms. Greenleaf alleges that these charges
are likewise duplicitous and, in light of what Chicago Title charges for the same title
insurance, unreasonably high. The inclusion of these charges in the amount financed was
designed to disguise compensation paid to Loan Arranger, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §
1637 of the TILA, 12 C.F.R. § 226.13, and Section 2 of ICFA, 815 ILL. Comp. STAT.
505/2. Ms. Greenleaf also seeks the same remedies, in the form of rescission of the

transaction, attorney’s fees, and statutory damages.

ANALYSIS
The applicable Local Rule of the Northern District of Illinois is LR 40.4, which
provides for reassignment of cases as related. Under LR 40.4(a), cases may be related if
they involve any one of the following conditions:
(1) the cases involve the same property;

(2) the cases involve some of the same issues of fact or law;

(3) the cases grow out of the same transaction or occurrence; or

3


Homecoming Financial Network and Mortgage Lenders Network. In both cases the
plaintiffs will be filing motions for Class Certification that will likely involve
substantially identical briefs and issues because the same law firm represents the
plaintiffs in both cases subject to this motion.

The third requirement, that the earliest case has not progressed too far, has also
been satisfied. Murry is still in the preliminary stages, and discovery has just begun.
Reassignment of Greenleaf to this Court’s docket would not, at this point, cause any
substantial delay that would otherwise prejudice the resolution of the respective parties”
dispute. Finally, the fourth requirement, that it be possible for both cases to be disposed
of in a single proceeding, has been met. Both Murry and Greenleaf require a
determination of whether Loan Arranger’s pricing schedules are allowable under TILA,
Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, and ICFA. Moreover, the Greenleaf class is
subsumed in Murry Class B. Thus, it is clear that the cases are susceptible of disposition
in a single proceeding.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court grants defendants’ motion for a finding
that case nos. 03 C 5811 and 03 C 6186 are related within the meaning of LR 40.4(a)
[doc. no. 31-1] and grants defendants’ motion for reassignment of case no, 03 C 6186 to
this Court’s docket pursuant to LR 40.4(b) [doc. no. 31-2}.

SO ORDERED ENTERED:

IN. RONALD
United States Judge

fart


Minaté Order For (067)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud Sitting Judge If Oth
rar Maglotrte Judge Ronald A. Guzman hun Asigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 5811 DATE 2/27/2004
CASE WILLIE C. MURRAY, et al vs. AMERICA’S MORTGAGE BANC, INC., et al
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(i) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due :
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for) on set for at .
(7) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for] on at
(8) a) [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CUFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1. CUFRCP41(a(1) (1 FRCP41(a)(2).
ao). [Other docket entry) _ ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court grants
defendants’ motion for a finding that case nos. 03 C 5811 and 03 C 6186 are related within the meaning
of LR 40.4(a) [31-1] and grants defendants’ motion for reassignment of case 03 C 6186 to this Court’s
docket pursuant to LR 40.4(b) [31-2].
a1) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.
Notices mailed by judge's staff,
Notified counsel by telephone.
| Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. LYNOI LIWLSid “SN
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. WAT
— Ghee WW L2 aad tw
ca dus ern
me OC Bick chet n
central Clerk's Office



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIE C. MURRY and
WYLODEAN MURRY,

DOCKETED

Plaintiffs, MAR 01 2004

03 C 5811
ve.
Judge Ronald A. Guzman
AMERICA’S MORTGAGE BANC, INC.;
THE LOAN ARRANGER, INC.;
CLEARWATER TITLE COMPANY;
PARAGON HOME LENDING, LLC;
HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL
NETWORK, INC., MICHAEL ROBINS;
and JOHN DOES 1-5;

wee SS we ew ewer we ere

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on The Loan Arranger, Inc., Clearwater Title
Company, Inc., Michael Robins, and BWM Mortgage, LLC’s motion for a finding of
relatedness and motion to reassign the present case with Blondell Greenleaf v. BWM
Mortgage, LLC (03 C 6186) pursuant to Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 40.4

(“LR 40.4”). For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the motion.

BACKGROUND
In the instant case, Willie and Wylodean Murry, on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, defendants America’s Mortgage Banc,
Inc., The Loan Arranger, Inc., Clearwater Title Company, Paragon Home Lending, LLC,
Homecomings Financial Network, Inc., Michael Robins, and five John Doe defendants.

There are two putative classes. Class A consists of all who obtained loans from

NO


America’s Mortgage Banc secured by their residences, on or after a date three years
before the instant action was commenced, involving Loan Arranger and Clearwater Title,
where the charge for title insurance was excluded from the finance charge. Class B
consists of all who obtained loans secured by their residences, on or after three years
before this action was commenced, involving Loan Arranger and Clearwater, where the
charge for title insurance was excluded from the finance charge.

Prior to April 3, 2002, the Murrys hired Loan Arranger as a mortgage loan broker.
On April 3, 2002, the Murrys closed on a loan that was arranged by Loan Arranger and
that was secured by their primary household residence. The Murrys received a Truth in
Lending Statement from America’s Mortgage Banc, Inc. that listed charges in the amount
of $1,145 for obtaining title insurance from Clearwater Title. This amount was in
addition to title insurance charges of $450 to Lakeshore title. America’s Mortgage
Bane, Inc. did not label these charges as “finance charges,” but rather included them in
the total amount financed. Clearwater Title is a company under common ownership with
the Loan Arranger. The Murrys contend that these charges were unreasonable and
duplicitous and were included in an overstated amount financed to disguise compensation
that was being paid to Loan Arranger in violation of, inter alia, 15 U.S.C. § 1637 of the
Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. §
226.13, and Section 2 of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILL. Comp.
STAT. 505/2. They now seek rescission of the mortgage loan transactions, damages in
the form of attomey’s fees, and other statutory damages on behalf of all putative class
members.

Greenleaf v. BWM Mortgage, LLC (03 C 6186), pending before Judge Amy St. Eve,

2