Catlin Syndicated Limited v. Ramuji, LLC et al
Filing
329
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 293 - The court WILL GRANT PIB's motion for partial summary judgment and WILL ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favor of PIB and against Ramuji and Mr. Desai as to their liability on PIB's claims for recovery under the promi ssory note, breach of contract, and breach of the guaranty. At PIB's request, the court will defer issuing a judgment on the exact amount of damages. The court will enter a separate partial judgment. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 11/4/2019. (KEK)
FILED
2019 Nov-04 PM 12:09
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
CATLIN SYNDICATED LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAMUJI, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
4:16-cv-01331-ACA
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the court is Defendant-Cross Claimant-Third Party Plaintiff Peoples
Independent Bank’s (“PIB”) unopposed motion for partial summary judgment on its
claims against Defendant-Crossclaim Defendant Ramuji, LLC, and Third Party
Defendant Suresh Desai.1 (Doc. 293).
Ramuji owned and operated a motel in Alabama. It took out a loan secured
by a mortgage in favor of PIB, and one of its members, Suresh Desai, executed a
guaranty on the loan. Since a fire destroyed the motel, Ramuji and Mr. Desai have
not made any payments on the loan. PIB has declared the loan to be in default and
has initiated foreclosure proceedings. As relevant to this motion for summary
1
On July 19, 2018, PIB added Mr. Desai to the case as a third party defendant. (Doc. 188).
On August 5, 2019, Ramuji’s attorney, who also represents Mr. Desai, waived the service of
summons on Mr. Desai. (Doc. 287 at 5). PIB filed its motion for summary judgment several days
later, on August 12, 2019. (Doc. 293). Mr. Desai, like Ramuji, had an opportunity to respond to
the motion for summary judgment, but he did not do so. Accordingly, the motion is unopposed.
judgment, PIB has asserted crossclaims against Ramuji and third party claims
against Mr. Desai, claiming that: (1) PIB is entitled to recover under a promissory
note executed by Ramuji and Mr. Desai; (2) Ramuji and Mr. Desai breached
contracts with PIB; and (3) Mr. Desai breached a guaranty agreement with PIB.
(Doc. 188 at 47–51).
Because the undisputed evidence establishes that Ramuji and Mr. Desai
breached the promissory note, mortgage, guaranty, and a commercial security
agreement, the court WILL GRANT the motion for partial summary judgment and
WILL ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favor of PIB and against Ramuji and
Mr. Desai as to their liability on PIB’s claims for recovery under the promissory
note, breach of contract, and breach of the guaranty. The court will defer issuing a
judgment on the exact amount of damages.
I.
BACKGROUND
On a motion for summary judgment, the court “draw[s] all inferences and
review[s] all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2012)
(quotation marks omitted). Although Ramuji and Mr. Desai did not respond to the
motion for summary judgment, the court has reviewed “all of the evidentiary
materials submitted in support of the motion for summary judgment.” United States
v. One Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Fla., 363 F.3d
2
1099, 1101–02 (11th Cir. 2004). The court draws its description of the facts from
those evidentiary materials.
In 2004, Ramuji borrowed $731,050 from PIB, and secured the loan with a
mortgage on real property. (Doc. 289-1 at 1 ¶ 4; id. at 4–7). In May 2013, Ramuji,
through Mr. Desai, executed a promissory note under which it agreed to pay
$507,762.50—presumably the remaining principal owed at the time—together with
interest. (Id. at 8–9). Ramuji also executed a commercial security agreement
granting PIB a security interest in the real property (id. at 13–170), and Mr. Desai
executed a guaranty under which he “guarantee[d] full and punctual payment and
satisfaction of the indebtedness of [Ramuji] to [PIB]” (doc. 289-1 at 10–12). The
mortgage, promissory note, commercial security agreement, and guaranty provide
that PIB can recover any payments made on Ramuji’s behalf, including taxes,
assessments, insurance, expenses, and PIB’s attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 9, 11, 14–15).
In April 2016, a fire destroyed the motel on the real property securing the
mortgage. (See Doc. 289-1 at 2 ¶ 7). Since that time, Ramuji and Mr. Desai have
not made the required payments. (Id.). As of August 9, 2019, Ramuji and Mr. Desai
owe PIB $719,497.02, as well as a per diem of $125.31, continued interest, costs,
fees, and additional attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 2 ¶ 9).
3
II.
DISCUSSION
PIB moves for summary judgment on its claims against Ramuji and
Mr. Desai, but seeks “leave to prove damages at a later date.” (Doc. 293 at 2).
Summary judgment is appropriate “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). This court “cannot base the entry of summary judgment
on the mere fact that the motion was unopposed, but, rather, must consider the merits
of the motion.” One Piece of Real Prop. Located at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami,
Fla., 363 F.3d at 1101.
PIB’s claims are all for breach of contract: the contracts created by the
promissory note, mortgage, guaranty, and commercial security agreement. To
prevail on a breach of contract claim under Alabama law, the plaintiff must establish
(1) the existence of a valid contract; (2) the plaintiff’s own performance under the
contract; (3) the defendant’s nonperformance; and (4) damages. Shaffer v. Regions
Fin. Corp., 29 So. 3d 872, 880 (Ala. 2009). PIB has presented undisputed evidence
of valid contracts, its own performance under those contracts, and Ramuji’s and
Mr. Desai’s failure to perform. (See generally Doc. 289-1). PIB has also presented
undisputed evidence that Ramuji’s and Mr. Desai’s failure to perform has damaged
it. (Id. at 2 ¶ 9). Accordingly, even taking the facts in the light most favorable to
Ramuji and Mr. Desai, summary judgment is appropriate on PIB’s claims for
4
recovery under the promissory note, breach of contract, and breach of Mr. Desai’s
guaranty.
III.
CONCLUSION
The court WILL GRANT PIB’s motion for partial summary judgment and
WILL ENTER SUMMARY JUDGMENT in favor of PIB and against Ramuji and
Mr. Desai as to their liability on PIB’s claims for recovery under the promissory
note, breach of contract, and breach of the guaranty. At PIB’s request, the court will
defer issuing a judgment on the exact amount of damages.
The court will enter a separate partial judgment.
DONE and ORDERED this November 4, 2019.
_________________________________
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?