THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NEREIDA MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.  04 C 4159

DENTISTS, P.C., DENTAL PROFILE,

LTD., PERLA DENTAL, DENTAL

PROFILE,

Honorable Judge Der‐Yeghiayan

Defendant.   

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

AGAINST MB FINANCIAL

Plaintiff NEREIDA MENDEZ, by and through her undersigned attorneys,

respectfully move this Court for an order to show cause why MB Financial should not

be held in contempt of court for failing to answer Plaintiff’s Citation to Discovery Assets

to MB Financial.  In support, Plaintiffs state as follows:

1. On April 26, 2007, a jury reached a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Nereida

Mendez (Mendez), and on April 26, 2007, the court entered judgment in favor of

Mendez on all claims against Defendant in the total amount of $781,181.25.  

2. On June 21, 2010, Mendez served MB Financial with a citation to discover

assets (“Citation”). (Exhibit 1, attached hereto.)  

3. On July 3, 2010, MB Financial filed a motion to quash the citation, which

this Court denied on August 18, 2010, holding in relevant part:   

Case: 1:04-cv-04159 Document #: 306 Filed: 08/26/10 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:3700
2 

Mendez has provided with her response portions of the record from

bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Defendants. The record shows that

Defendants indicated in the bankruptcy proceedings that they are keeping

funds in an MB account with the account name “AYA Dental.” . . . . Thus,

since Mendez is not seeking the disclosure of funds held by MB for a non‐

judgment debtor, the Citation appropriately seeks the disclosure of funds

held in the “AYA Dental” account. Therefore, we deny the motion to

quash citation.

(See Docket 301, 7/3/10 Order.)  

4. On that same day, August 18, 2010, Plaintiff’s counsel sent MB Financial’s

counsel correspondence, stating in relevant part: “. . . Please produce the records and

information per the citation by no later than this Friday, August 20, 2010. . . .”

5. MB Financial did not respond.  

6. MB Financial has failed and refused to answer the Citation.

7. The Citation required that MB Financial answer by June 25, 2010.  

8. MB Financial has failed to comply with the Citation, and therefore, is in

contempt of Court. See Laborersʹ Pension Fund v. Pavement Maintenance, Inc., 542 F.3d 189,

192 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming the district court’s order granting the plaintiff’s motion for

rule to show cause and the turnover order).  

WHEREFORE, for the above stated reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests the

Court enter an order:   

A. For Rule to Show Cause why MB Financial should not be held in contempt of

court for failing to answer the Citation;  

Case: 1:04-cv-04159 Document #: 306 Filed: 08/26/10 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:3701
3 

B. Requiring MB Financial to answer the Citation within three (3) days of the

Court’s Order;  

C. Granting Plaintiff her fees and costs in having to bring this motion;  

D. Granting such other relief that is just and equitable.  

        

Respectfully submitted,  

NEREIDA MENDEZ

        

s/Dana L. Kurtz      

Electronically filed on August 26, 2010

Dana L. Kurtz (ARDC# 6256245)

KURTZ LAW OFFICES, LTD.

414 South State Street

Lockport, Illinois 60441

Phone:   815.838.0968

Facsimile:  312.893.2239

E‐mail:  dkurtz@kurtzlaw.us

Case: 1:04-cv-04159 Document #: 306 Filed: 08/26/10 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:3702