Jerlib Investers, LLC v. Cohn & Cohn

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION JERLIB INVESTORS, LLC, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) No. 19-cv-6203 COHN & COHN, ) Judge Andrea R. Wood ERWIN COHN, ) CHARLES A. COHN, ) LEE S. ROSE, ) JOHN KRCIL, ) BLACK LION INVESTMENT ) PARTNERS, INC., ) BROWN CAPITAL FUNDING ) INTERNATIONAL, ) CHRISTOPHER R. BROWN, and ) STEPHEN HAY, ) Defendants. ) ______________________________________ COHN & COHN and ERWIN COHN ) Cross-Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) LEE S. ROSE, ) Cross-Defendant, ) and ) ) EDWARD WOOTEN, et al., ) ) Third-Party Defendants. )

MOTION OF DEFENDANT ERWIN COHN, COHN & COHN, and CHARLES COHN FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST ALL CROSS-DEFENDANTS AND THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE DEFAULTED

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), Erwin and Charles Cohn and Cohn & Cohn (for ease of reference,“the Cohn Defendants”) respectfully move this Court to enter default judgments against the six cross-defendants and one third-party defendant who have defaulted. In support of the motion, Erwin states as follows: 1. On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff JerLib filed its Complaint. Dkt.1. 2. On February 17, 2021, Cross-Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs Charles Cohn and Cohn & Cohn filed their Crossclaims and Third-Party Claims against six Cross-Defendants Rose, Krcil, Black Lion, Brown, BCFI, and Hay and one Third-Party Defendant Wooten. Dkt.110. 3. On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff JerLib filed its Second Amended Complaint. Dkt.111. 4. On March 10, 2021, Cross-Plaintiff Erwin Cohn filed his Crossclaims and Third-Party Claims against six Cross-Defendants Rose, Krcil, Black Lion, Brown, BCFI, and Hay. Dkt.120.

5. It is undisputed that each of these seven cross- or third-party defendants were served between May 5, 2021 and February 8, 2022, and all but one was served twice. Defendant Served by Served by Erwin Answers Due Charles & Firm Lee Rose February 18, 2021 March 10, 2021 March 10, 2021 March 21, 2021 John Krcil May 5, 2021 September 13, 2021 May 26, 2021 & October 4, 2021 Black Lion May 5, 2021 September 14, 2021 May 26, 2021 & October 5, 2021 Brown Capital May 5, 2021 September 27, 2021 May 26, 2021 & October 18, 2021 Stephen Hay May 5, 2021 September 27, 2021 May 26, 2021 & October 18, 2021 Christopher Brown May 13, 2021 February 8, 2022 June 3, 2021 & March 1, 2022 Edward Wooten May 13, 2021 Not a Cross- June 3, 2021 Defendant of Erwin

6. In June 2021, JerLib filed motion for default against six of seven of these parties (all but Wooten). Dkts.153, 154. In June through August 2021, the Cohn Defendants also sought default judgments against the same six defendants, as well as Defendant Wooten. Dkts. 155, 167, 173, 201. 7. On March 30, 2022, this Court granted JerLib’s motions and granted default judgments against six defendants, Dkt., 205, at 4-5, but denied without prejudice the motions of the Cohn Defendants on the ground that “entering default judgment on Cohn Defendants’ and Erwin’s claims raises the prospect of logically inconsistent adjudications as to their liability” and was therefore premature. Id. at 5-6, citing Marshall & Ilsley Tr. Co. v.

Pate, 819 F.2d 806, 811 (7th Cir. 1987), citing Frow v. De la Vega, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 552 (1872). As the Court in Marshall explained, however, the Seventh Circuit “has read narrowly the restriction on inconsistent judgments established in Frow.” Id. at 812. The appellate court explained the way in which the Frow principle was unique to the facts in Frow and identified specific cases in which the entry of a default judgment was appropriate notwithstanding a potential future inconsistent verdict. Id. 8. Equally, if not more, importantly, the Court’s conclusion that the Cohn Defendants’ default motions were premature occurred in March 2022, which was more than a year before this Court granted judgment on three counts in favor of JerLib and against the Cohn Defendants, in March 2023, Dkt.279, and before the Court set December 4, 2023, as the trial date in this case. Dkt.XXX. At this point, with the trial approaching, default judgment against these cross-Defendants and third-party Defendant is wholly appropriate. It would be wholly unreasonable for the Court to inform the jury of liability judgments entered against the Cohn Defendants, but not enter (and inform the jury of) judgments

against the cross- and third-party defendants – parties duly named and served – who have refused to participate in this case. WHEREFORE, the Cohn Defendants respectfully request this Court to enter default judgments on all counts against the six cross-defendants and one third-party defendant identified above. Dated: September 15, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

ERWIN COHN

/s/ Stuart J. Chanen

Stuart J. Chanen Chanen & Olstein 7373 N. Lincoln Ave. Suite 100 Lincolnwood, IL 60712 847-469-4669 Stuart@ChanenOlstein.com

CHARLES COHN COHN & COHN

/s/ Charles A. Cohn

Charles A. Cohn COHN & COHN 77 W. Washington St., #1422 Chicago, IL 60602 312-346-9336 cceclaw@aol.com