NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 4, 2022*

Decided May 6, 2022

Before

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 21-3038

ZHU ZHAI HOLDINGS LIMITED

and PETER PUI TAK LEE,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

STEVEN IVANKOVICH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 20-cv-4985

Sharon Johnson Coleman, 

Judge.

Order

Plaintiffs extended about $3 million in loans to entities controlled by Steven Ivankovich, who guaranteed repayment. When the entities did not pay, plaintiffs filed this suit 

to collect on the guaranty. Ivankovich ignored the litigation, and the district judge entered a default. After Ivankovich secured counsel, the judge vacated the default. But the 

lawyer withdrew, and Ivankovich missed a deadline for securing new counsel—and

* Counsel for appellant waived his participation in oral argument. The panel then decided that it is 

unnecessary to receive oral argument from appellee. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
No. 21-3038 Page 2

while litigating pro se Ivankovich again failed to appear at scheduled hearings. The district judge then entered a second default, followed by a judgment for more than $4.5 

million (the original sums plus interest and attorneys’ fees). 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154674 

(N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2020), reconsideration denied, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216712 (Oct. 20, 

2021).

Ivankovich’s lead argument on appeal is that the district court lacked subject-matter 

jurisdiction because Zhu Zhai Holdings is a form of limited liability company that did 

not disclose its members’ identities and citizenships. Yet a Hong Kong business with 

the style “Limited” or “Ltd.” is treated as a corporation for purposes of American law. 

See Superl Sequoia Ltd. v. Carlson Co., 615 F.3d 831, 832 (7th Cir. 2010). Accord, Jet Midwest International Co. v. Jet Midwest Group, LLC, 932 F.3d 1102, 1105 (8th Cir. 2019). 

Ivankovich’s appellate briefs do not cite either of these decisions, and we lack any reason to depart from their holdings.

Ivankovich has a second jurisdictional argument: that the borrowers are necessary 

parties and would, if joined, spoil complete diversity. Yet he does not explain why they 

are necessary under the terms of the guaranty (which he never quotes) or Hong Kong 

law (which the parties agreed would govern). Collection from a guarantor without the 

participation of the original debtors is common in American law, see, e.g., Indigo Old 

Corp. v. Guido, No. 21-1922 (7th Cir. Mar. 28, 2022), and we have not been offered any 

reason to suppose that Hong Kong law is different.

This leaves only the argument that the district judge abused her discretion in declining to set aside the default. Yet Ivankovich concedes failing to appear at many scheduled hearings, personally or by counsel. That he may have had an excuse for one nonappearance (notice was mailed to his address in Illinois but not his address in Florida) 

does not explain or excuse the other non-appearances. Nor does he proffer a plausible 

defense on the merits. He does not contend, for example, either that the borrowers have 

repaid or are not yet required to repay, or that he has satisfied his obligation under the 

guaranty. The district judge did not abuse her discretion.

AFFIRMED