The 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