UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SPIKE BODY WERKS, INC., an Illinois 

Corporation GENEVA REPAIR SHOP INC., an 

Illinois Corporation, NICNAT LLC, an Illinois 

Limited Liability Company, and PASQUALE 

ROPPO, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BYLINE BANKCORP, INC., and its primary 

subsidiary, BYLINE BANK, as successor in 

interest to RIDGESTONE BANK, its successors 

and assigns, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20-cv-4771

Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to the Court’s Order entered on November 21, 2023, the parties, by their respective 

counsel, submit the following joint status report. 

I. Nature of the Case

A. Identify the attorneys of record for each party. 

For Plaintiffs, Nicholas R. Recchia, lead trial attorney.

For Defendants, Peter D. Sullivan, lead trial attorney.

B. State the basis for federal jurisdiction. If based on diversity, state the domicile of all 

parties. See Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2012). If any 

party is a partnership or a limited liability company and the basis of jurisdiction is 

diversity, counsel must identify the name and domicile(s) of each and every 

partner/member of each such entity. See Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market 

Place LLC, 350 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2003); Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729 (7th 

Cir. 1998); Carden v. Arkoma Assoc., 494 U.S. 185 (7th Cir. 1990).

Federal question jurisdiction premised on claim of discrimination on the basis 

of national origin in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Case: 1:20-cv-04771 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/29/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:854
2

C. Briefly describe the nature of the claims asserted in the complaint and the counterclaims and/or third-party claims and/or affirmative defenses.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 

(ECOA) by declining to provide Plaintiffs with a line of credit. Plaintiffs claim 

Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of Plaintiff Roppo’s Italian 

national origin.

D. Describe the relief sought by the plaintiff(s) and provide an estimate of damages, if

any.

Plaintiffs seek to recover the amounts they owe on loans made by Defendant 

Byline Bank to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also seek to recover lost profits.

E. List the names of any parties who have not yet been served.

None.

II. Discovery and Pending Motions

A. Briefly describe all pending motions, including the date the motion was filed and the 

briefing schedule, if any.

No motions pending.

B. What is the current discovery schedule?

All discovery is closed.

C. Briefly describe all facts and expert discovery that the parties have conducted, 

including any electronic discovery. Describe any discovery that the parties still need 

to complete and indicate whether the parties anticipate completing discovery by the 

current deadline.

Each side served and responded to interrogatories and document requests. Two 

depositions have been taken, Mr. Roppo and Michael Van Ede a representative of 

Defendant Byline Bank.

D. Briefly summarize all substantive rulings issued in the case. (For each ruling, include 

the date and the docket number.). 

Plaintiffs original Complaint asserted claims for discrimination based on race 

and national origin in violation of the ECOA, and also asserted state law claims. The 

Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for discrimination based 

on race and Plaintiffs’ state law claims, but denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ claim for discrimination based on national origin. The Court gave Plaintiffs’ 

leave to file an amended complaint. Doc. No. 19, 8/27/21 Order.

On September 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint asserting 

a claim for discrimination based on national origin and state law claims. Doc. No. 22. 

Defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims based on the Illinois Credit 

Case: 1:20-cv-04771 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/29/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:855
3

Agreement Act. The Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ state law 

claims in the Amended Complaint. Doc. No. 37, 6/9/22 Order.

Thus, the sole remaining claim at issue is Plaintiffs’ claim for discrimination 

based on national origin in violation of the ECOA. 

Plaintiffs disclosed one expert on damages, Mr. Pappas, and submitted an 

expert report by Mr. Pappas to Defendants on May 22, 2023. Defendants moved to 

strike the expert disclosure and report, as not complying with FRCP 26(a)(2). In an 

Order entered on 10/3/23, the Court granted Defendants’ motion and struck Plaintiffs’ 

expert disclosure and report. Doc. No. 60. 

III. Trial

A. Have any of the parties demanded a jury trial?

Plaintiffs made a demand for jury trial.

B. What is the trial date (If any)? If there is a trial date, are the parties prepared to have 

a trial on an earlier date? If there is no trial date, when will the parties be ready for?

No trial date has been set yet.

C. Have the parties filed a final pretrial order? If so, when? If not, when is the deadline

for the filing?

No final pretrial order filed yet. No deadline has been set yet for filing final 

pretrial order.

D. Estimate the number of trials days.

3-5 days.

IV. Settlement, Referrals, and Consent

A. Have any settlement discussions taken place? If so, what is the status? 

No significant settlement discussions have taken place. The parties are very 

far apart in settlement. Settlement is not likely.

B. Has this case been referred to the Magistrate Judge for discovery supervision and/or a 

settlement conference?

No.

C. Do the parties request a settlement conference at this time before this Court or the 

Magistrate Judge?

No.

Case: 1:20-cv-04771 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/29/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:856
4

D. Have counsel informed their respective clients about the possibility of proceeding 

before the assigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial and entry of final 

judgment? Do all parties unanimously consent to the procedure?

The parties do not consent to proceeding before the Magistrate Judge for all 

purposes including trial and entry of a final judgment.

V. Other

A. Is there anything else that the plaintiff(s) wants the Court to know? 

Plaintiff plans to file a motion for summary judgment and requests that the 

Court set a deadline in late February for the parties to file motions for summary 

judgment.

B. Is there anything else that the defendant(s) wants the Court to know? 

There is a pending Illinois State Court case filed by Byline Bank against 

plaintiffs, where Byline Bank seeks foreclosure and recovery on the loans it made to 

plaintiffs. That case has been stayed due to recent Bankruptcy filings by Plaintiffs 

Spike Body Werks, Inc., Geneva Repair Shop, Inc. and Nicnat, LLC, Bankruptcy Case 

Nos. 23-13885 (Spike), 23-13878 (Geneva) and 23-15379 (Nicnat).

Defendants plan to file a motion for summary judgment and request that the 

Court set a deadline in late February for the parties to file motions for summary 

judgment.

BYLINE BANCORP, INC. and BYLINE BANK

/s/ Peter D. Sullivan 

 Attorney for Defendants

Peter D. Sullivan – ARDC 6481940

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500

Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: 312-704-3000 | Facsimile: 312-704-3001

psullivan@hinshawlaw.com

SPIKE BODY WERKS, INC., an Illinois

Corporation GENEVA REPAIR SHOP INC., an 

Illinois Corporation, NICNAT LLC, an Illinois 

Limited Liability Company, and PASQUALE 

ROPPO, an individual

/s/ Nicholas R. Recchia 

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-04771 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/29/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:857
5

Nicholas R. Recchia – ARDC No. 6309973

Attorney at Law

1701 E. Woodfield Road, Suite 925

Schaumburg, Illinois 60173

Telephone: 847-619-3000

recchialaw@aol.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04771 Document #: 64 Filed: 11/29/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:858