Bradley Timberland Resources v. Bradley Lumber Company et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration of 16 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on March 14, 2012. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

BRADLEY TIMBERLAND RESOURCES, LLC
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 1:11-CV-1057

BRADLEY LUMBER COMPANY and
WEBSTER BUSINESS CREDIT CORP.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Bradley Timberland Resources,
LLC’s (“BTR”) Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 18) pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e).

The Motion (Doc. 18) is DENIED.

Previously, in its Order of February 6, 2012 (Doc. 16), the
Court found that Defendant Bradley Lumber Company (“BLC”) had been
fraudulently joined by BTR in this matter in order to defeat
diversity and divest the Court of jurisdiction.

The Court found

that BTR’s claims against the remaining Defendant, Webster Business
Credit Corp. (“Webster”), should be dismissed due to the fact that
the limitations period on BTR’s claims for fraud and tortious
interference had run.
BTR now contends that the Court erred in finding that the
claims for fraud and tortious interference accrued in the fall of
2007, more than three years before BTR filed its Complaint.

BTR’s

position is incongruous, considering the fact that it stated
multiple times in its Complaint that Webster’s termination of BLC’s
financing, which constitutes the basis for BTR’s fraud and tortious

interference claims, occurred in the fall of 2007.1

Yet, in its

Motion for Reconsideration, BTR now disputes that the alleged harm
began in the fall of 2007 and maintains instead that BLC was not
put on notice as to Webster’s allegedly false representations until
August 13, 2008, when Webster’s counsel stated in a letter to BLC
that the loan was officially terminated.
The

Court

finds

that

the

continuance

of

the

lending

relationship, evidenced by certain wire transfers in 2008 from
Webster to BLC, does not negate the fact that BLC was put on notice
that it had defaulted on its loan with Webster and that Webster was
in the process of ceasing funding of the loan as early as the fall
of 2007. The evidence is ample, particularly in the companion case
of Webster Business Credit Corp. v. Bradley Lumber Company, et al.,
1:08-CV-01083, that the decision to curtail and eventually end
financing of the Webster/BLC loan occurred in and around the fall
of

2007,

when

Webster

began

terminating

BLC’s

inventory

and

accounts receivable financing. Therefore, as BTR itself averred in
its Complaint, BLC became aware of Webster’s decision to curtail

1

See Complaint, Doc. 6 at para. 19: “Starting in the Fall
(late August or early September) of 2007 Webster made several false
representations.”
See also id. at para. 11, emphasis added: “In
the Fall (late August or early September) of 2007 Webster contacted
Bradley Lumber and required Bradley Lumber obtain a letter of
credit from the financial institution that financed a customer by
the name of Sound Industries, a purchaser of large amount of
Bradley Lumber product.
Webster demanded these measures from
Bradley Lumber in order to reopen Bradley Lumber’s inventory and
accounts receivable financing.”
2

funding for the loan earlier than the date in which official
correspondence confirmed that the loan was terminated.
Moreover, as the Court explained in its Order dismissing BTR’s
claims, because the owner and principal of BLC and BTR were the
same person, BTR had the same knowledge as BLC as to the facts
surrounding the Webster loan.

Further, BTR and BLC were not two

separately managed and funded entities with no knowledge of one
another’s business decisions; instead, they were closely held
companies owned by the same individual who decided to use the
assets of one company (BTR) as collateral to secure a loan for the
other company (BLC).

Surprisingly, BTR continues to maintain in

its Motion for Reconsideration that it “was a victim of misconduct
at the hands of both Webster and BLC,” which defies logic, facts,
and the reasoned decision of the Court in its Order.

See Doc. 18,

p. 6.
Accordingly, the Court determines the findings contained in
the Order of February 6, 2012 (Doc. 16) to be correct, and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of March, 2012.
/s/ Robert T. Dawson
Honorable Robert T. Dawson
United States District Judge

3