# Capital One Equipment Finance Corp. v. Big 3 Taxi, Corp.

> District Court, N.D. Illinois · November 29, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10139777

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** November 29, 2018
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10139777

## Opinion text

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

CAPITAL ONE EQUIPMENT FINANCE
CORP. f/k/a ALL POINTS
CAPITAL CORP., d/b/a CAPITAL
ONE TAXI MEDALLION FINANCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

BIG 3 TAXI CORP.; CHARLEY Case No. 17 C 234
TAXI CORP., II; ELVIN’S TAXI
CORP.; EUPHORIA TAXI CORP.; Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
HARVARD TAXI CORP.; MYSTIC
TAXI CORP.; SUNRISE TAXI
CORP.; TWINKY’S TAXI CORP.;
ELVIN SHTAYNER; STANLEY
SHTAYNER; and YASYA SHTAYNER,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Capital One Equipment Finance Corp. (“Capital One”)
moved for and won summary judgment as to liability against the
Defendants, Big 3 Taxi Corp., Charley Taxi Corp., Elvin’s Taxi
Corp, Euphoria Taxi Corp., Harvard Taxi Corp., Hymes Taxi Corp.,
Mystic Taxi Corp., Sunrise Taxi Corp., Twinky’s Taxi Corp., Elvin
Shtayner, Stanley Shtayner, and Yasya Shtayner, based on
promissory notes and guaranties related to Defendants’ defaulted-
upon loans. Having won on liability, Capital One now moves for
summary judgment as to damages and seeks costs and fees. (Dkt.
No. 113.) For the reasons stated herein, that Motion is granted
in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND

The Court has already found in Capital One’s favor on the
question of liability. (See generally Mem. Op. & Order, Dkt.
No. 98.) Though that ruling sets forth this suit’s background in
detail, the Court includes here a brief summary for clarity’s sake.
In 2012, non-party Tri-Global Financial Services, Inc.
originated loans for each of the nine Defendant companies owned by
the Shtayner brothers, Elvin—who owns six of the companies—and
Stanley—who owns three. Each brother executed promissory notes
for the sums loaned to each of their respective companies. At the
same time, each brother signed guaranties for each of their
respective companies’ loans. Finally, Yasya Shtayner, mother to
Elvin and Stanley, signed a guaranty for all nine loans.

Tri-Global exited the picture soon thereafter, having
transferred the notes and their attendant guaranties to Capital
One. Then, when Defendants universally failed to pay up on the
obligations reflected in the notes, Capital One initiated this
action to collect what it was due. The parties filed competing
motions for summary judgment as to liability, and the Court found
in Capital One’s favor. All that remains now is the question of
damages.
On July 11, 2018, Capital One moved for summary judgment as
to damages, seeking both the amounts due on the nine notes and
attorneys’ fees and costs accumulated via these collection

efforts. (Pl.’s Summ. J. Mot., Dkt. No. 113.) The parties
appeared before the Court shortly thereafter, and Defendants asked
for leave to conduct damages discovery before responding to Capital
One’s Motion. The Court granted Defendants one month to conduct
discovery and set a response deadline of September 18, 2018. (See
Hearing Tr. 5:20-25, Dkt. No. 121.) Then, on joint motion of the
parties, the Court extended that deadline to October 5th. That
date came and went, yet Defendants never filed a response to
Capital One’s Motion. The Court must rule without it.
In its Statement of Material Facts (“SOF”), Capital One
explains that prior to the November 1, 2015, maturity date, each
loan was subject to an interest rate of 5.5% per year, calculated

on the basis of a 360-day year comprised of twelve, 30-day months.
(Capital One’s SOF ¶¶ 5, 12, 19, 26, 33, 40, 47, 54, 61.) Once
Defendants failed to repay the loans on the maturity date, however,
Capital One became entitled under those notes’ terms to collect
post-maturity default interest at the “highest rate permitted by
law.” (Id. ¶¶ 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63.) As each loan’s
payment history indicates, Capital One has chosen 9.0% as the post-
maturity interest rate. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56,
63; accord 815 ILCS 205/4 (setting a 9% ceiling on interest rates
agreed to in contracts governed by Illinois law).) In addition,
each note contains a late-charge provision stating that in the
event the signatory fails to pay any amount within ten days of the

due date for said payment, “a late charge of five cents ($0.05)
for each dollar ($1.00) so overdue may be charged by the Lender.”
(Id. ¶¶ 8, 15, 22, 29, 36, 43, 50, 57, 64.) That five-cent charge
effectively amounts to a five-percent late fee on each loan’s
principal.
Defendants, who fail to respond to Capital One’s Motion, do
not dispute any of the above. Because Defendants do not present
any statements of their own controverting those set forth by
Capital One, “[a]ll material facts set forth in [Capital One’s]
statement . . . will be deemed to be admitted.” Friend v. Valley
View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 365U, 789 F.3d 707, 710 (7th Cir. 2015)
(citing N.D. Ill. L.R. 56.1(b)(3)(C)).

Against this backdrop, Capital One provides the three summary
tables reproduced below. These tables showcase the amount due
under each loan as of July 11, 2018, the date Capital One filed
the instant Summary Judgment Motion.
Amounts Due on Elvin Shtayner Company Loans
Borrower Defendant Amount Due — July 11, Per Diem Interest
2018 Post-July 11, 2018
Big 3 Taxi Corp. $1,261,680.69 $250.00
Charley Taxi $313,707.37 $62.22
Corp., II
Elvin’s Taxi Corp. $315,370.27 $62.50
Euphoria Taxi $1,576,850.56 $312.50
Corp.
Harvard Taxi Corp. $315,370.27 $62.50
Twinky’s Taxi $315,370.24 $62.50
Corp.
Total: $4,098,349.40 $812.22

Amounts Due on Stanley Shtayner Company Loans
Borrower Defendant Amount Due — July 11, Per Diem Interest
2018 Post-July 11, 2018
Hymes Taxi Corp. $1,576,850.56 $312.50
Mystic Taxi Corp. $942,793.82 $186.94
Sunrise Taxi Corp. $1,576,850.56 $312.50
Total: $4,096,494.94 $811.94

Amounts Due on All Loans
Loan Pool Amount Due — July 11, Per Diem Interest
2018 Post-July 11, 2018
Elvin Shtayner $4,098,349.40 $812.22
Company Loans
Stanley Shtayner $4,096,494.94 $811.94
Company Loans
Total: $8,194,844.34 $1,624.16

(SOF ¶¶ 67-69.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD
“Legal damages, like liability, can be determined via the
summary judgment mechanism.” Hanover Ins. v. N. Bldg. Co., 751
F.3d 788, 795 (7th Cir. 2014). Summary judgment must be granted
“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact
exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Zaya v. Sood, 836 F.3d 800,
804 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477

U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). When evaluating summary judgment motions,
courts must view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the nonmovant. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 378 (2007). “Once a party has made a properly-supported
motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party may not simply
rest upon the pleadings but must instead submit evidentiary
materials that ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.’” Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932,
937 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)).
III. DISCUSSION

The Court has already found Defendants liable and now because
there are no genuine issues of material fact as to damages, the
Court finds Capital One entitled to the following damages as a
matter of law. The Court has calculated these sums by adding to
the July 11, 2018, amounts the respective per diem multiplied by
142, the number of days between July 11th and today, November 29,
2018, the date the Court enters judgment in this case. Each
guarantor—Elvin, Stanley, and Yasya—shall be jointly and severally
liable with each borrower Defendant on those loans the respective
Shtayners guarantied.
Total Damages Owed by Elvin Shtayner Companies

Borrower Defendant Total Amount Due as of Date of
Judgment: November 29, 2018
Big 3 Taxi Corp. $1,297,180.69
Charley Taxi Corp., II $322,542.61
Elvin’s Taxi Corp. $324,245.27
Euphoria Taxi Corp. $1,621,225.56
Harvard Taxi Corp. $324,245.27
Twinky’s Taxi Corp. $324,245.24
Elvin Shtayner Personal
Guaranty Total: $4,213,684.64

Total Damages Owed by Stanley Shtayner Companies
Borrower Defendant Total Amount Due as of Date of
Judgment: November 29, 2018
Hymes Taxi Corp. $1,621,225.56
Mystic Taxi Corp. $969,339.30
Sunrise Taxi Corp. $1,621,225.56
Stanley Shtayner Personal
Guaranty Total: $4,211,790.42

Total Damages Owed by Yasya Shtayner, Personal Guarantor of All
Nine Loans Recited Above

Loan Pool Amount Due — July 11, 2018
Elvin Shtayner Company Loans $4,213,684.64
Stanley Shtayner Company
Loans $4,211,790.42
Yasya Shtayner Personal
Guaranty Total: $8,425,475.06

These calculations answer the damages question. What remains
are Capital One’s requests for attorneys’ fees and costs. Whether
a party is entitled to fees and costs under a contract is a
substantive issue governed by state law, but the method of
quantifying costs and fees is a procedural issue which, in
diversity cases like this one, is governed by federal law. Taco
Bell Corp. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 388 F.3d 1069, 1076-77 (7th Cir.
2004). In Illinois, a party is entitled to attorneys’ fees only
when a statute or contract specifically directs them. Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am. v. Curt Bullock Builders, Inc., 626 F. Supp. 159,

170 (N.D. Ill. 1985) (citations omitted) (observing that such terms
could appear in the promissory note itself or in the loan agreement
which accompanies it). Contracts may direct costs as well. See
Penn. Truck Lines, Inc. v. Solar Equity Corp., 127 F.R.D. 127, 128
(N.D. Ill. 1988), aff’d, 882 F.2d 221 (7th Cir. 1989).
Here, the promissory notes and the guaranties specifically
direct fees and costs expended in post-default collection efforts.
(See, e.g., Big 3 Taxi Promissory Note, Ex. 2 to Hussain Aff.,
Dkt. No. 44-2 (“The undersigned, and all persons liable or to
become liable on this Note, agree, jointly and severally, to pay

all costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and
disbursements, in case the unpaid principal balance of this Note
. . . is not paid when due[.]”); Elvin Shtayner Big 3 Taxi Guaranty,
Ex. 12 to Hussain Aff., Dkt. No. 44-12 (imposing on guarantor all
liabilities of the borrower, including all interest and
“attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses of collection incurred by the
Lender in enforcing any of such liabilities”).) As such, the Court
need only decide whether the fees and costs sought are reasonable.
When the terms of a contract entitle a party to fees and
costs, that entitlement carries an implied requirement that the
fees sought be “commercially reasonable,” “meaning that a party’s

aggregate costs must be reasonable in light of the stakes of the
case and the opposing party’s litigation strategy.” Sellars
Absorbent Materials, Inc. v. Sustainable Textile Grp., LLC,
No. 11-CV-00400, 2012 WL 2415544, at *1 (E.D. Wis. June 25, 2012)
(citing Matthews v. Wis. Energy Corp., Inc., 642 F.3d 565, 572
(7th Cir. 2011)). “In other words, fees are to be awarded at
market value, and ‘the best evidence of the market value of legal
services is what people pay for it.’” JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
v. PT Indah Kiat Pulp & Paper Corp. Tbk, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1014,
1021-22 (N.D. Ill. 2010) (quoting Balcor Real Estate Holdings,
Inc. v. Walentas-Phoenix Corp., 73 F.3d 150, 153 (7th Cir. 1996)),
aff’d sub nom. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co.,

707 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2013). Costs directed under contract must
be reasonable as well. See id.
Capital One seeks $294,897.48 in attorneys’ fees. In support
of that request, Capital One submits invoices and billing sheets
reflecting $283,253.98 of their sought-after sum. Defendants meet
this evidence with silence, so they have clearly not identified
any evidence showing that the requested fees are unreasonable.
Based on the Court’s review of Capital One’s records, the Court
sees nothing unreasonable about the $283,253.98, and so that amount
shall be awarded. Capital One explains that the additional
$11,643.50 it seeks represents legal services rendered in June
2018 but not yet paid as of this Motion’s July 2018 filing date.

(SOF ¶ 75; Browne Decl. ¶ 51, Dkt. No. 118.) Presumably, those
June expenses represent counsels’ work on the instant Motion, which
Capital One filed on July 11, 2018. This Motion was necessary to
advance the litigation, and Capital One could reasonably be
expected to have accumulated some legal fees via the Motion’s
development. And yet, without the aid of billing sheets attesting
to that work, the Court cannot be assured these fees were
reasonable (notwithstanding Defendants’ failure to object). The
Court will accordingly reduce that final $11,643.50 by two-thirds,
to $3,881.17, and then add that reduced amount to the earlier-
described sum to reach a final fee award of $287,135.15. See Vocca
v. Playboy Hotel of Chi., Inc., 686 F.2d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 1982)

(“District courts have broad discretion in making attorney’s fee
awards.”).
Capital One also seeks costs in the amount of $5,322.92. The
sole support Capital One submits for this request is a single
pronouncement, recited without citation to any supporting
evidence, by one of their attorneys. (Browne Decl. ¶ 49 (stating
simply that Capital One paid $5,322.92 in costs).) This will not
do. The Court must be given some insight into the source of costs
to determine their reasonableness. It makes sense that Capital
One accrued some costs over the course of this nearly two-years-
long litigation, but absent some documentation the Court is in no
position to judge these costs with precision. Accordingly, and

noting once more that Defendants do not object to the request for
costs, the Court reduces Capital One’s costs by two-thirds and
awards $1,774.31.
One issue remains. Capital One contends that post-judgment
interest should accrue on all of the amounts ordered above. The
Court agrees. 28 U.S.C. § 1961 recites that “[i]nterest shall be
allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a
district court . . . at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year
constant maturity Treasury yield . . . for the calendar week
preceding the date of judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Said
interest shall compound annually. 28 U.S.C. § 1961(b). Last
week’s average for the 1-year constant maturity treasury yield was

2.67%. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, Daily Treasury Yield Curve
Rates (Nov. 27, 2018, 1:44 PM), https://www.treasury.gov/resource-
center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data
=yield. The Court accordingly imposes that interest rate on all
sums imposed by this judgment.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Capital One’s
Motion for Summary Judgment as to damages and imposes awards
against each Defendant as follows: $1,297,180.69 against Big 3
Taxi; $322,542.61 against Charley Taxi Corp., II; $324,245.27
against Elvin’s Taxi Corp.; $1,621,225.56 against Euphoria Taxi
Corp.; $324,245.27 against Harvard Taxi Corp.; $324,245.24 against
Twinky’s Taxi Corp.; $1,621,225.56 against Hymes Taxi Corp.;
$969,339.30 against Mystic Taxi Corp.; and $1,621,225.56 against
Sunrise Taxi Corp. Elvin Shtayner shall be jointly and severally
liable for the damage awards against the first six companies,
totaling $4,213,684.64. Stanley Shtayner shall be jointly and
severally liable for the damage awards against the final three
companies, totaling $4,211,790.42. Yasya Shtayner shall be
jointly and severally liable for the damage awards against all
nine companies, totaling $8,425,475.06. The Court also awards
Capital One $287,135.15 in attorneys’ fees and $1,774.31 in costs.
This judgment shall carry a 2.67% interest rate until it is
satisfied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Chttwhe
«Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated: 11/29/2018

~12-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10139777. Public record. Not legal advice.