Appellate Court of Illinois

In a claim alleging default on a loan modification agreement and breach of a guarantee agreement, denial of defendants' motion to stay proceedings is affirmed over claims: 1) defendant is under federal indictment and a stay is necessary to protect his fifth amendment rights; 2) defendant will be severely prejudiced without a stay; 3) a stay will further the public interest and promote judicial efficiency; 4) plaintiffs will not be unduly prejudiced by a stay; 5) a stay is appropriate because the subject of the instant lawsuit and the subject of the federal indictment overlap; 6) a stay is justified even though the government is not a party to this lawsuit; and 7) this case should be stayed against defendant-Financial Place because without defendant-Rezko's input and assistance, Financial Place is powerless to present a defense.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/14/2007
• Published 12/18/2007

Judges

Court

• Appellate Court of Illinois

Counsel