UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

PRINZO & ASSOCIATES, LLC, on behalf of 

itself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., BMO 

FINANCIAL CORP., a Delaware corporation; 

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 

Defendants.

Civil No. 20-cv-3256 

JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT

Hon. Gary S. Feinerman 

The Parties, through their respective counsel, met and conferred under the Federal and

Local Rules on July 17, 2020, and communicated thereafter in finalizing this joint report.

A. Nature of the Case

1. Attorneys of record.

Plaintiff is represented by Richard McCune, Michele Vercoski, Derek Brandt and Leigh 

Perica of McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, and anticipate that Mr. McCune and Mr. Brandt will 

serve as lead trial counsel. Defendants are represented by Jeffrey Jamison and Julie Aldort, of 

BMO Harris, and anticipate that Mr. Jamison and Ms. Aldort will serve as lead trial counsel. 

2. Basis for federal jurisdiction.

Plaintiff alleges that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d); jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 

because an actual controversy exists between the parties as to their respective rights and

obligations under 85 Fed. Reg. 20816 § (4)(c); and supplemental jurisdiction over its state law 

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

1

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 22 Filed: 07/27/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:65
Defendants contend that, while this Court may have subject matter jurisdiction under the 

Class Action Fairness Act, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff has not 

established Article III standing—it has not established injury in fact. Moreover, Defendants 

contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 because 

there is no actual controversy exists between the parties as to their respective rights and obligations 

under 85 Fed. Reg. 20816 § (4)(c). Defendants also dispute that this Court has supplemental

jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims. 

3. Nature of the claims asserted.

The above-captioned case is a proposed class action arising out of the Paycheck Protection 

Program (“PPP”) created as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the

“CARES Act”). In its complaint, Plaintiff Prinzo & Associates, LLC alleges that the PPP requires

the Defendant banks to provide “agents” who assisted borrowers with completing or submitting 

loan applications, and/or assisted borrowers with creating or providing supporting documentation 

for loan applications, a portion of the resulting compensation the lender received for processing

these forgivable loans. Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant has adopted a policy of refusing to 

pay agent fees and that those policies do not comply with the PPP. Plaintiff contends that its 

professionals assisted a borrower in filling out PPP applications, and provided supporting 

documentation for said application, but have not been paid an agent fee by Defendants. 

Defendants dispute the Plaintiff’s interpretation the CARES Act and PPP—lenders are 

required pay self-declared agents who did not satisfy the Small Business Association’s (“SBA”) 

regulations. Moreover, Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot satisfy its own requirements to 

be paid an agent fee—submitting a request for payment. 

2

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 22 Filed: 07/27/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:66
 Plaintiff asserts the following claims on behalf of proposed nationwide classes of agents 

who have assisted PPP loan applicants in their completion and submission of their BMO Harris 

applications: (1) declaratory relief, (2) breach of contract – third party beneficiary, (3) violations 

of Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/2 et 

seq., (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) conversion. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class (Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 23), as well as economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages,

attorney’s fees, and costs, and an injunction and/or declaratory relief as necessary to protect the 

interests of the Plaintiff and the Class against Defendants. 

Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief. Defendants also dispute that there is 

a basis for class certification.

4. The principal legal issues.

The principal legal issues include:

• Whether the Plaintiff has standing to pursue its claims.

• Whether the Defendants are obligated under the PPP to pay Plaintiff and a class of

similarity situated agent fees from their receipt of PPP payments, and if so, under

what circumstances and based on what documentation.

• If Plaintiff is entitled to an agent fee, when must the Defendants pay that fee.

• Whether the putative class meets the numerosity, adequacy, commonality,

typicality, predominance, and superiority requirements of Rule 23.

• Whether a temporary or permanent injunction is warranted to protect the interests

of the Plaintiffs and the Class.

5. The principal factual issues.

The principal factual issues concern: 1) whether the Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact; 

2) whether Defendants’ policy was nonpayment of fees to “agents” who assisted borrowers with

completing or submitting loan applications, and/or assisted borrowers with creating or providing

3

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 22 Filed: 07/27/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:67
supporting documentation for loan applications and related Rule 23 issues; 3) whether Plaintiff 

satisfied its obligations under the SBA’s regulations to obtain an agent fee; 4) whether Plaintiff 

has established that it is an “agent”; 5) whether Plaintiff’s purported status as an agent was 

disclosed to Defendants and, if yes, when; 6) what services Plaintiff provided as an agent; 7) 

whether Plaintiff has properly documented its fees and services under the applicable statutes and 

regulations; and 8) the amount of fees, if any, owed to Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated 

agents. 

6. Parties yet to be served.

All named defendants have been served.

B. Proceedings to Date

None. 

C. Discovery and Case Plan

1. Summary of Discovery.

Deposition discovery shall comply with FRCP 30 (no more than 10 depositions per side) 

absent a showing of good cause, except that this limit shall not apply to: (1) expert discovery; (2) 

declarants offered in support or opposition to class certification; (3) non-rebuttal witness identified 

to testify at trial. All other discovery, including interrogatories, requests for production, and 

requests for admission, shall comply with the Federal Rules. The parties anticipate that there will 

be electronic discovery. The parties also anticipate that a protective order will be required in this 

case to protect confidential business and client information. The parties will submit a joint 

proposal regarding the ESI Protocol and Protective Order to govern this case no later than August 

14, 2020. 

2. Proposed Scheduling Order

4

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 22 Filed: 07/27/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:68
Defendants consent to the cadence of the proposed scheduling order, but contend that 

discovery should be stayed and the dates set forth below reset following the resolution of 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss to be filed on or before August 14, 2020. Defendants reserve the 

right to request phased discovery after the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff disagrees and contends that there is no default stay of discovery pending a 

defendant’s motion to dismiss. See New England Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Abbott 

Labs., No. 12C1662, 2013 WL 690613, *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2013) citing SK Hand Tool Corp. v. 

Dresser Indus., 852 F.2d 936, 945 (7th Cir. 1988). A Rule 12 motion alone typically is deemed 

insufficient to support such an application for stay. New England Carpenters, 2013 WL 690613 

at *2. Therefore, discovery should proceed per the applicable rules. 

Deadline Date

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Deadline August 31, 2020

Deadline for issuing first round of written 

discovery

September 21, 2020

Deadline for amending pleadings and adding 

parties without leave of Court

September 7, 2020 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification March 1, 2021

Defendants’ Response to Class Cert Motion April 15, 2021

Plaintiff’s Reply for Class Certification May 17, 2021

Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure Deadline March 1, 2021

Plaintiff’s Expert Deposition Deadline March 22, 2021

Defendant Expert Disclosure Deadline April 15, 2021

Defendant Expert Deposition Deadline May 6, 2021

Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Disclosure Deadline May 17, 2021

Deadline for completing Fact discovery June 1, 2021

Dispositive Motion Deadline June 15, 2021

3. Jury demand.

Plaintiff has demanded jury trial.

4. Trial.

5

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 22 Filed: 07/27/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:69
The parties believe a decision regarding the length of trial or the earliest possible trial date 

should be deferred until: (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss is resolved; and (2) issues of class 

certification are resolved.

D. Settlement

The parties have not yet engaged in any settlement discussions. At this time, the parties do 

not request a settlement conference. 

E. Magistrate Judge

The parties respectfully decline to consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. As of this 

date, no matters have been referred to a Magistrate Judge. 

DATED: July 27, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Richard D. McCune

Richard D. McCune (pro hac vice)

Michele M. Vercoski (pro hac vice)

MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP

3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 

Ontario, California 91761 

Tel: (909) 557-1250 

RDM@mccunewright.com 

MMV@mccunewright.com 

Derek Y. Brandt (#6228895) 

Leigh M. Perica (#6316756) 

MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP

231 North Main Street, Suite 20 

Edwardsville, Illinois 62025 

Tel: (618) 307-611 

Fax: (618) 307-6161 

DYB@mccunewright.com 

LMP@mccunewright.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff Prinzo & 

Associates, LLC

 /s/ Jeffrey E. Jamison (with consent) 

Jeffrey E. Jamison

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A.

111 West Monroe 

19th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60603

Tel: (312) 461-4694 

jeffrey.jamison@bmo.com 

Julie Rodriguez Aldort 

BMO HARRIS BANK N.A.

111 W. Monroe Street 

Fl. 19E 

Chicago, IL 60603

Tel: (312) 461-7905 

julie.aldort@bmo.com 

Counsel for Defendants BMO Harris Bank N.A. 

and BMO Financial Corp.

6

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 22 Filed: 07/27/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:70
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, Richard D. McCune, an attorney, hereby certify that the foregoing JOINT INITIAL 

STATUS REPORT was electronically filed on July 27, 2020 and will be served 

electronically via the Court’s ECF Notice system upon the registered parties of record. 

/s/ Richard D. McCune

Case: 1:20-cv-03256 Document #: 22 Filed: 07/27/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:71