1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ZHU ZHAI HOLDINGS LIMITED and

PETER PUI TAK LEE,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

STEVEN IVANKOVICH

Defendant.

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 1:20-cv-04985

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

ORDER

 Pursuant to Local Rule 40.4, Movant Stifel Nicolaus & Company Inc. (“Stifel”) seeks to 

reassign Atlas Apartments Acquisitions, LLC et al v. Stifel Nicolaus & Company Inc. et al, No. 22-cv-06470, 

(the “Atlas case”) to this Court’s docket. Stifel argues that the Atlas case is related to the case at bar 

(the “Ivankovich case”) and that Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 40.4(b)’s reassignment 

requirements have been met. For the reasons stated below, Stifel’s motion is denied [248]. 

 The Ivankovich case is in the middle of lengthy citations proceedings to discover assets 

potentially belonging to Steven Ivankovich. The Court entered judgment against Ivankovich and in 

favor of Zhu Zhai Holdings Ltd. and Peter Lee (collectively, “Judgment Creditors”) on August 17, 

2021. Ever since, Judgment Creditors have pursued citation proceedings against Ivankovich and 

various third parties, including Stifel, to try to locate assets that could be used to satisfy the 

judgment. The Court issued its most recent Order on these issues on December 16, 2022 and 

referred further supplemental discovery proceedings to Magistrate Judge Cox. The current deadline 

to complete further citation proceedings is May 18, 2023. 

On March 24, 2022, Stifel answered Judgment Creditors’ citation, noting that it had assets 

belonging to Ivankovich and identifying accounts held by Atlas Apartments Acquisitions, LLC, Atlas 

Apartment Homes LLC, Atlas Multifamily Three LLC, Atlas MF Mezzanine Borrower LLC, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 261 Filed: 01/20/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:3181
2

Premier Orlando Portfolio Two LLC, Atlas Alexandria & Parcvue LLC, Atlas Crowntree Lakes 

LLC, Apartment Holdings LLC,1 P2 Portfolio Managing Member LLC, Atlas Birchwood LLC, and 

Ivankvoich Family LLC (collectively, the “Atlas LLCs”). The Atlas LLCs appeared in the 

Ivankovich case to contest the citations, and Ivankovich sought to keep them at arms’ length. On 

May 9, 2022, this Court held that Judgment Creditors failed to sufficiently establish that Stifel held 

Ivankovich’s assets. Two days later, the Atlas LLCs filed the Atlas case against Stifel, Judgment 

Creditors, and other defendants in the Southern District of Florida. In their complaint, the Atlas 

LLCs contend that it was improper for Stifel to disclose information about their assets to Judgment 

Creditors, that Judgment Creditors engaged in unconscionable collection practices, and that 

Judgment Creditors and Stifel conspired to exchange financial records. In November 2022, District 

Judge Moreno granted the Atlas case defendants’ motion to change venue, concluding that the 

overlapping issues in the Atlas case and Ivankovich case satisfied the “first-filed rule” and the 28 

U.S.C. § 1404 factors, making the proper forum the Northern District of Illinois. See Atlas 

Apartments Acquisitions, LLC v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co. Inc., No. 22-21469-CIV-MORENO, 2022 WL 

17084205, at *3–5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2022). Upon transfer, the Atlas case was randomly assigned 

to Judge Seeger’s docket. 

The issue of whether to reassign a case under Local Rule 40.4 lies within the discretion of 

the district court. See Urban 8 Fox Lake Corp. v. Nationwide Affordable Fund 4, LLC, No. 18-cv-6109,

2019 WL 2515984, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2019) (Durkin, J.). Under Local Rule 40.4, a party 

seeking reassignment must first demonstrate that the cases are related by showing that at least one of 

the following conditions is satisfied: “(1) the cases involve the same property; (2) the cases involve 

some of the same issues of fact or law; [or] (3) the cases grow out of the same transaction or 

1 Stifel’s Answer refers to Atlas Apartment Holdings LLC. The Court understands this to be the same party 

as Apartment Holdings LLC. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 261 Filed: 01/20/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:3182
3

occurrence.” N.D.Ill. LR 40.4(a). Once the movant shows the cases are related, the case may be 

reassigned only if: “(1) both cases are pending in this Court; (2) the handling of both cases by the 

same judge is likely to result in a substantial saving of judicial time and effort; (3) the earlier case has 

not progressed to the point where designating a later filed case as related would be likely to delay the 

proceedings in the earlier case substantially; and (4) the cases are susceptible of disposition in a 

single proceeding.” N.D.Ill. LR 40.4(b).

The Court finds that these cases are related under Local Rule 40.4(a). Given that the Atlas 

case arises out of the Ivankovich case, the cases necessarily involve some of the same issues of fact 

or law. See Targin Sign Sys., Inc. v. Preferred Chiropractic Ctr., Ltd., 714 F. Supp. 2d 901, 902 (N.D. Ill. 

2010) (Shadur, J.) (discussing how relatedness is defined “with a broad brush”). Therefore, Stifel has 

shown that the cases are related. 

Nonetheless, the Court finds that Stifel did not establish each of Local Rule 40.4(b)’s 

requirements for reassignment. Specifically, it is unclear how the Ivankovich case and Atlas case are 

susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding. The Atlas case is in its initial pleading stage, 

whereas the Ivankovich case is in its final stages. The Court does not see how the upcoming

supplemental proceedings in the Ivankovich case will resolve issues relevant to the Atlas case.

2

 Stifel 

has not identified which single proceeding could resolve both cases, and focuses primarily on

efficiency concerns. Indeed, this Court is extensively familiar with the parties, attorneys, and issues 

in the cases, and agrees that this knowledge could be useful in the Atlas case. Yet, this Court also 

has full faith that Judge Seeger is competent to handle the Atlas case. Because Stifel did not 

establish each 40.4(b) factor, this Court denies Stifel’s motion [248]. 

2 This Court acknowledges its comment from its May 31, 2022 Order that “[t]he better way to approach [the 

conspiracy claim to freeze plaintiffs’ assets], however, was to ask this Court to unfreeze the assets, instead of 

filing what appears to be a baseless lawsuit in another federal district court.” Nonetheless, the Atlas LLCs 

filed their complaint, and the Atlas case must now proceed through proper litigation procedure as set forth 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Illinois Local Rules. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 261 Filed: 01/20/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3183
4 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 1/20/2023

 Entered: _____________________________ 

 SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN

 United States District Judge 

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 261 Filed: 01/20/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:3184