'·· ,_
·.r'\

SENTINEL MORTGAGE CORPORATION 221 North LaSalle Street Suite 2600
Cllieago,.IL·• &060 1
FINAL NOTICE

(312) 220-9700

Dear Homepwner:
A recent review of Cook C<lua-tvts Propertv Tax Files showed your 1998 tax bill unpaid and currently outstanding. Penalties and interest are accruing at over 18% each year until this bil!js paid! Fw:tb.e.n:uure.,..if.t!:!is..ux.\:>l!·in·fWt -p<ricl;you·may l:OSE YODR HOME!!!!
TffiSMAYBE YOUR LAST CHANCH TO REDEEM YOUR TAXES!!!
As an experienced Attorney and loan officer with over I0 years experience in the Chicago market, I may be able to help you by taking one of the following actions:

1) Lend money directly to you to payoff the above tax bill.
2) Refinance your current mortgage and payoff the delinquent tax bill.
3) Refinance your mortgage, pay your tax bill, and payoff other bills that have high interest rates.
4) ALSO- you may be able to borrow extra money for home improvements or debt consolidation.

Piease call me or my assistant Erika and Cynthia to discuss this tax bill at:
312-220-9700
Please leave a message if I am not there and I will promptly return your call.
Sincer:tu~--

Mark R. Cahan

Please disregard in ta'es have been paid or received in error.
fl!inois Residential Mortgage Licensee

 </s> ·

Minute Order FornI (06/97)
~

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

~:me of Assigned Judge

/
L

or Magistrate Judge

CASE NUMBER

Robert W, Gettleman
02 C 5255

Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge
DATE

November 26, 2003

CASE TITLE
MOTION:

Betty J. Dumas v Sentinel Mortgage Corp., et al
[In the followmg box (a) mdlcate the party fihng the motion, c.g., plamtlff, defendant, 3rd party plalll(lff, and (b) slate briefly the nature of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

(I ) o
(2) o

Filed motion of [use listing in "Motion" box above,] Brief in support of motion due _ _'

(3) o (4) o (5) o

Answer brief to motion due_ _, Reply to answer brief due_ _ , Hearing Status hearing

(6) o

Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set forlre-set for] on _ _ set for _ _ at _ _'

(7) o (8) o

Trial[set forlre-set for] on _ _ at _ _' [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to _ _ at _ _'

(9) o

This ease is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without eosts[by/agreementlpursuant to]
o FRCP4(m) 0 General Rule 21 0 FRCP41(a)(I) 0 FRCP41 (a)(2),

(10).

[Other docket entry] Memorandum opmlOn and order entered.

Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted

as to counts I and II. The Court declines to exercise supplemental

judgment over count III, which plaintiff may be able to pursue m

state court. Count III is dismissed without prejudice.

(II) II

[For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

-

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

)( ,--
,--
-
f--

Notices mailed by judge's staff. Notified counsel by telephone. Docketing to maililotices. Mail AD 450 form. Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

nlnO:l l:lJ(JISJO 's'n
jJ(j31:l

GDS

courlroom deputy's initials

'1'1 :~ H~ 2- ~4q 8U

number ornoliccs
DEC u 2 2D(\3
dM OCkClcd
dale mailed notice nJ.liling depuly initials

3/

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRlCT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

BETTY J. DUMAS,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

No. 02 C 5255

v.

)

)

SENTINEL MORTGAGE CORP., MARK R.

)

CAHAN, and JEFF KLEANBERG,

)

)

Defendants.

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In a three count pro se complaint, plaintiff Betty J. Dumas ("Dumas") alleges that

defendants Sentinel Mortgage Corporation ("Sentinel"), Mark R. Cahan ("Cahan"), and Jeff

Kleanberg ("Kleanberg"), violated the Fair Housing Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. (Count I), the

Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 (Count II), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and

Deceptive Business Practices Act 815 ILCS § 50512 (Count ill) by first sending a solicitation for

a loan and then refusing to grant her a loan because of her race. Defendants have moved for

summary judgment on all three counts. For the reasons stated below, the court grants defendants'

motion as to Counts I and II and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c) over Count III.

FACTS'

Plaintiff is an African-American woman who lives in Chicago, Illinois. Cahan is the

founder and president of Sentinel, an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in

'These facts are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) Statements of Material Facts and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

Chicago, Illinois. Kleanberg was an employee and representative of Sentinel from May 2002 to June 2003.
Sentinel is a mortgage brokering business that does not lend money directly to consumers but rather connects lenders with qualified borrowers. As compensation, Sentinel receives a percentage of the total loan amount for any referral that results in a loan. Lenders with whom Sentinel contracts require a minimum loan amonnt of$20,000 to $50,000 to process a loan, depending on the particular lender. According to defendants, when a potential borrower requests a loan for less than $20,000, it is Sentinel's practice to inform the customer that $20,000 is the minimum loan, and if they are interested in a loan of at least $20,000 they come to Sentinel's office to complete a loan application. There is no evidence that Sentinel has approved loans for less than $20,000, but Sentinel admits it has approved loans for less than $50,000. In the regular course of its business, Sentinel maintains a log of all loans in which it acted as a broker. In 2001, 18 out of 53 loans in which Sentinel acted as a broker were to African-American borrowers (34%) and in 2002,30 out of the 85 loans were to African-American borrowers (35%).
On or about May 17, 2002, Sentinel sent a mass mailing to all Cook County homeowners who were delinquent on their taxes. Dumas received one such letter that stated:
FINAL NOTICE. Dear Homeowner,
A recent review of Cook County's Property Tax Files showed your 1998 tax bill unpaid and currently outstanding. Penalties and iuterest are accruing at over 18% each year until this bill is paid! Furthermore, if this tax bill is not paid you may LOSE YOUR HOME!!!! THIS MAYBE YOUR LAST CHANCH[sicl TO REDEEM YOUR TAXES!!!
2

As an experienced Attorney and loan officer with over 10 years experience in the Chicago market, I may be able to help you by taking one of the following actions: 1) Lend money directly to you to payoffTsic] the above tax bill. 2) Refinance your current mortgage and payoffTsic] the delinquent tax bill. 3) Refinance your mortgage, pay your tax bill, and payoffTsic] other bills that have high interest rates. 4) ALSO-you may be able to borrow extra money for home improvements and debt consolidation ...
Sincerely, Mark R. Cahan. (Emphasis in original). In a substantially similar letter from Sentinel to Dumas on or about the same time, Sentinel's letter indicated that her unpaid balance was $700. On or about July 18, 2002, Dumas called Sentinel in response to these letters and spoke to Cahan and Kleanberg about a loan of$IO,OOO to pay off her taxes. Cahan and Kleanberg informed Dumas of Sentinel's minimum loan amounts. Defendants contend that Kleanberg suggested that if she was interested in taking out a loan of $20,000 or more, she should come by Sentinel's office to complete an application. Plaintiff contends that Cahan and Kleanberg refused to take an application from Dumas for a loan ofless than $50,000. In either case, there is no evidence that Dumas ever applied for a loan with Sentinel. After her home was sold for delinquent taxes, Dumas filed this three count complaint.
3

' •.
LEGAL STANDARD
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56 when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw, Fed.R.Civ,P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Stewart v. McGinnis, 5 F.3d 1031, 1033 (7th CiL 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1121 (1994). Once the movant has met its burden, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for triaL Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The court considers the record as a whole and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. O'Connor v. DePaul University, 123 F.3d 665, 669 (7th CiL 1997).
A genuine issue of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. However, the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Chicago Board ofEducation v. Substance, Inc., 2002 U.s. Dist. LEXIS 15036, at *6 (N.D. IlL 2002). "The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence in which a jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
DISCUSSION Plaintiff argues that defendants did not allow her to apply for a loan of less than $50,000 because she was an African-American. Plaintiff also argues that defendants misrepresented that she could apply for a loan ofless than $50,000 upon which she relied to her detriment.
4

' ..
In response, defendants argue that plaintiff is using the legal system to cure her perceived societal wrongs. Defendants also argue that plaintiff has failed to show any evidence of racial discrimination and that she failed to submit a completed application as required to state a claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Finally, defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to establish that defendants made a false or misleading statement, that defendants intended that she rely on any false or misleading statement, and alternatively, that she failed to suffer any damages as a result of such a reliance.
In Counts I and II, plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3605 and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 by refusing her a loan because of her race. Section 3605(a) of the Fair Housing Act provides that:
lilt shall be unlawful for any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate against any person in making available such a transaction, or in the terms or conditions of such a transaction, because ofrace, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.c. §§ 3605(a) (2000). To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in lending in the Seventh Circuit, a plaintiff must show a reason for suspecting discrimination on a prohibited basis. Latimore v. Citibank Fed. Say. Bank, 151 F.3d 712, 715 (7'h Cir. 1998). This can be shown by: (1) providing evidence that two applicants, one Caucasian and one African-American, each submitted an application to a bank at the same time and met the bank's standard of creditworthiness, but only the Caucasian received the loan, or (2) othelWise providing sufficient direct or circumstantial evidence of discrimination to create a triable issue of fact. !d.
5

'.'
Section 1691(a)(1) of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act provides:
[IJt shaIl be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract).
15 U.S.c. § 1691(a)(1) (2000).
To establish a claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, plaintiff must have actuaIly submitted a completed application as defined by 12 C.F.R. § 202.2(f). Howard Oaks, Inc. v.
Maryland Nat'! Bank, 810 F.Supp 674, 678 (D. Md. 1993). Section 202(f) provides that an,
[AJpplication means an oral or written request for an extension of credit that is made in accordance with procedures used by a creditor for the type of credit requested.... A completed application means an application in connection with which a creditor has received all the information that the creditor regularly obtains and considers in evaluating applications for the amount and type of credit requested (including, but not limited to, credit reports, any additional information requested from the applicant, and any approvals or reports by governmental agencies or other persons that are necessary to guarantee, insure, or provide security for the credit or coIlateral).
12 C.F.R. § 202.2(f) (2003). In support of its motion defendant has provided evidence that at least 34% of the loans in
which Sentinel acted as a broker were to African-American borrowers in the year in which this
dispute took place. Plaintiff, on the other hand, has presented no evidence to support her aIlegation. Although plaintiff is proceeding pro se, she has been provided notice pursuant to
Local Rule 56.2 informing her that she caunot rest on her own self-serving statements. Plaintiff
has provided no evidence to suggest that Sentinel discriminated against African-American
borrowers, in general, on a prohibited basis, or that a Caucasian person with creditworthiness
similar to her's sought to apply for and received a loan ofless than $50,000 at the same time with
6

Sentinel. Plaintiff has provided no evidence that she was refused an application because of her

race. Nor has plaintiff contradicted defendants' factual assertions that Sentinel has not

discriminated against African-American borrowers. In the absence of any such evidence by

plaintiff, the undisputed evidence reflects that Sentinel did not racially discriminate against

African-Americans, in general, or her in particular. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to raise

genuine issues of fact as to whether Sentinel violated the Fair Housing Act or Equal Credit

Opportunity Act, and Sentinel is entitled to summary judgment on these Counts.

Finally, in Count III, plaintiff charges Sentinel with fraud under Illinois' Consumer Fraud

and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 50512 (2003). Having concluded that plaintiff

has no federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count III

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

For the reasons set forth above, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as

to Counts I and II. The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count III, which

plaintiff may be able to pursue in state court. Count III is dismissed without prejudice.

ENTER: November 26,2003

~,~
R bert W. Gettleman United States District Judge

7

 </s> AO 460(Rev. 6(86)Judgment in a Civil Case
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division

Betty J. Dumas

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v.

Case Number 02 C 5255

Sentinel Mortgage Corp., etal
o Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues
have been tried and the jury rendered its verdict.

• Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendant's motion for summary judgments is granted as to counts I and II. The Court declines to exercise supplemental judgment over count III. Count III is dismissed without prejudice.

. ;i~"~"
,.. '

, .

DEl' C ~l Z003

Date; November 26,2003

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court
,~~,
George Schwemin, Deputy Clerk

 </s> CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?911495065358378-L_35...
SCHENKIER, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-05255

Dumas v. Sentinel Mtge Corp, et al Assigned to: Hon. Robert W. Gettleman Demand: $0 Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Plaintiff Betty J Dumas
V. Defendant Sentinel Mortgage, Corp.
Defendant Mark R Cahan
Defendant Jeff Kleanberg

Date Filed: 09/17/2002 Date Terminated: 11/26/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Betty J Dumas 3620 So. Calumet Ave. Chicago, IL 60653-1104 PRO SE
represented by Victor J. Pioli Johnson & Bell, Ltd. 55 East Monroe Street Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 372-0770 TERMINATED: 01/15/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Victor J. Pioli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Victor J. Pioli (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/15/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 4

7/5/2007 2:19 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?911495065358378-L_35...

Date Filed 07/24/2002 07/24/2002 07/24/2002 07/24/2002 07/25/2002 07/26/2002
09/03/2002 09/06/2002
09/17/2002
09/17/2002 09/23/2002
10/01/2002 10/08/2002 10/15/2002 10/15/2002 10/23/2002 10/23/2002

#

Docket Text

1 RECEIVED COMPLAINT with five copies. (hp) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
2 CIVIL cover sheet. (hp) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
3 PRO SE APPEARANCE by plaintiff (hp) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
4 APPLICATION by plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis (hp) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
FORWARDED complete case file to Judge Gettleman. (hp) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
5 MINUTE ORDER of 7/26/02 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied [4-1] for failure to demonstrate a financial hardship. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
6 MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration to proceed without cost (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
7 AMENDED NOTICE of motion by plaintiff regarding motion for reconsideration to proceed without cost [6-1] (Attachments). (vmj) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
8 MINUTE ORDER of 9/17/02 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration to proceed without cost is granted [6-1]. Summons to issue. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
COMPLAINT (vmj) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
5 SUMMONS issued, 5 originals and one copy each, as to defendants' Sentinel Mtge Corp, Jeff Kleanberg and (Mark R. Cahan with three addresses) to U.S. Marshal, with copies of complaint and certified copy of minute order dated 9/17/02. (vmj) Modified on 09/23/2002 (Entered: 09/23/2002)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendants' Sentinel Mtge Corp, Mark R Cahan and Jeff Kleanberg on 9/25/02. (vmj) (Entered: 10/03/2002)
10 RETURN OF SERVICE unexecuted as to defendant Mark R Cahan (Attachment). (vmj) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
11 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants' by Victor J. Pioli. (vmj) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
12 MOTION by defendant to extend time to answer or otherwise plead ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
13 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant Mark R Cahan on 10/22/02. (vmj) (Entered: 10/24/2002)
14 MINUTE ORDER of 10/23/02 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman: Defendants' motion for extension of time of 14 days to answer or otherwise plead is granted [12-1]. Telephoned notice (vmj) (Entered: 10/24/2002)

2 of 4

7/5/2007 2:19 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?911495065358378-L_35...

11/22/2002 11/27/2002
12/11/2002 12/13/2002 12/18/2002
12/31/2002 01/08/2003 01/15/2003
01/31/2003 02/04/2003 02/06/2003 03/06/2003 04/15/2003 07/22/2003
08/12/2003 08/12/2003

15 RULE 55 MOTION by plaintiff for default judgment (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
16 MINUTE ORDER of 11/27/02 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman: Enter order of default against defendants. Plaintiff's prove-up papers are due by 12/11/02. Prove-up hearing is set for 12/18/02, at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
17 DAMAGES prove-up by plaintiff (Exhibits); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
18 MOTION by defendant to vacate order of default ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
19 MINUTE ORDER of 12/18/02 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman: Status hearing held and continued to 1/14/03 at 9:00 a.m. Defendants' motion to vacate order of default is granted [18-1], conditioned on payment of $150.00 to plaintiff for her time. Defendants' response to the complaint is due by 1/6/03. Mailed notice (vmj) (Entered: 12/19/2002)
21 MOTION by defendants to withdraw The Law Firm of Levenfeld Pearlstein and Victor Pioli as counsel ; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
20 ANSWER by defendants' to plaintiff's complaint [0-1]; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
22 MINUTE ORDER of 1/15/03 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman: Status hearing reset to 2/6/03 at 9:00 a.m. Motion of Victor Pioli of The Law Firm of Levenfeld Pearlstein for leave to withdraw as counsel on behalf of defendants' is granted [21-1]. No notice (vmj) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
23 INTENT as to joint status report by plaintiff; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
24 INITIAL status report by defendants; Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 02/10/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 2/6/03 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 3/6/03 . Open court notice (gds) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 3/6/03 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 4/15/03 . Open court notice (gds) (Entered: 03/06/2003)
SCHEDULE set on 4/15/03 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 7/22/03 . Discovery ordered closed on 7/17/03 . Open court notice (gds) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
25 MINUTE ORDER of 7/22/03 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman : Status hearing held and continued to 9:00 a.m. on 12/02/03. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is due by 08/12/03. Plaintiff's response is due by 09/19/03. Defendant's reply is due by 10/03/03. No notice (jmp) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
26 MOTION by defendants for summary judgment ; Memorandum in support (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 08/13/2003)
27 NOTICE by defendants to pro se litigant opposing motion for summary judgment. (vmj) (Entered: 08/13/2003)

3 of 4

7/5/2007 2:19 PM

CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0 - U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois - Docket... https://ecf.ilnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?911495065358378-L_35...

09/19/2003 10/03/2003 10/03/2003 11/26/2003
11/26/2003

28 RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendants memorandum of law in support of their motion for summary judgment [26-1] (Attachment); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
29 NOTICE by Victor Pioli of change of address. (vmj) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
30 REPLY by defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment (Attachments); Notice. (vmj) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
31 MINUTE ORDER of 11/26/03 by Hon. Robert W. Gettleman: Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to counts I and II [26-1]. The court declines to exercise supplemental judgment over count III, which plaintiff may be able to pursue in state court. Count III is dismissed without prejudice. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. terminating case Notices mailed by judge's staff (vmj) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
32 ENTERED JUDGMENT. (vmj) (Entered: 12/02/2003)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/05/2007 14:20:11

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 1:02-cv-05255

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

0.16

4 of 4

7/5/2007 2:19 PM


[CONTENT] July 24, 2002 | the U.S. District Court | the Northern District | Illinois | the Fair Housing Act | 42 | 3601-3619 | the Equal Credit Opportunity Act | 15 | 1691 ||| Defendant ||| November 26, 2003 | U.S. | District Court | Robert W. Gettleman | Defendants | two ||| Dumas | Sentinel Mortg ||| 2003 | U.S. ||| LEXIS 21684 | N.D. | Ill. ||| Nov. 26, 2003 ||| Gettleman | Plaintiff | Defendant | African-Americans [SUMMARY] Plaintiff filed suit on July 24, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant advertised loans to help pay tax liability, but that when Plaintiff contacted Defendant she was told that she could only obtain a loan for home improvements. On November 26, 2003, U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Gettleman granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's two federal claims and dismissed the pendant state law claim without prejudice. Dumas v. Sentinel Mortg. Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21684 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2003). Judge Gettleman found that the Plaintiff adduced no evidence that the Defendant had discriminated against her or against African-Americans in general.

