PNC Bank, National Association v. Maranatha Properties, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 63 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's counsel is directed to provide the Court with a proposed judgment setting out the requested relief. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 10/18/2016. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
RH FL, LLC,
Case No: 5:15-cv-563-Oc-30PRL
MARANATHA PROPERTIES, INC.
and JUAN ADRIATICO,
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 63), and Defendants’ response in opposition (Doc. 65). The Court has considered
these filings, the record, and the relevant law, and concludes the motion should be granted.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Former plaintiff PNC Bank, National Association (“PNC”) filed this action against
Defendants Maranatha Propertys, Inc. and Juan Adriatico for breach of a promissory note,
foreclosure of a mortgage, foreclosure of leases and rents, foreclosure of security interest
in personal property, and enforcement of a guaranty. (Doc. 1). Defendants either admitted
to not paying the amounts owed or refused to answer the allegations in the complaint.
On July 20, 2016, PNC moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 63). Attached to the
summary judgment motion are nearly a hundred pages of documents, supporting PNC’s
motion and the relief requested in the complaint. Specifically, PNC provided the
promissory note, mortgage, assignment of rents and leases, guaranty, “changes in terms,”
a transaction history, and other documents necessary to show its entitlement to relief.
On September 12, 2016, current Plaintiff RH FL, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moved to
substitute as Plaintiff, and adopted Plaintiff’s previously filed motion. (Doc. 70). Plaintiff
attached documents to its motion to substitute (Doc. 70) and reply (Doc. 76) showing it
obtained PNC’s interest via a series of sales and assignments that occurred in August 2016.
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Motions for summary judgment should be granted only when “the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,
if any show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)
(internal quotation marks omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Once a party properly makes a
summary judgment motion by demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact, whether or not accompanied by affidavits, the nonmoving party must go beyond the
pleadings through the use of affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
admissions on file, and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. The evidence must be significantly probative to support the
claims. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986). A 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.” U.S. v. One Piece of Real Prop. Located
at 5800 SW 74th Ave., Miami, Fla., 363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004).
Defendants raise a single argument as to why the Court should not grant Plaintiff’s
motion: that the Court lacks jurisdiction. Defendants raised this same argument in their
Motion to Involuntarily Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 62), which the Court denied. (Doc. 69).
Defendant argue that the parties are required to litigate this dispute in court in Lake County,
Florida, pursuant to an agreement. Denying their motion, this Court explained that
Defendants’ had waived the improper venue argument and that the agreement on which
Defendants relied was superseded by subsequent “changes in terms.” (Doc. 69). For those
same reasons, the Court again rejects Defendants’ jurisdictional argument.
Although the Court rejects Defendants’ only argument in opposition to summary
judgment, that alone does not entitle Plaintiff to the relief. Id. Rather, the Court must
consider whether the record evidence proves that there are no genuine issues of material
fact and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322.
The Court concludes Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment. The record makes
clear—and, indeed, Defendants do not dispute many of the material allegations—that
Plaintiff is entitled to the relief it seeks. In reaching this conclusion, the Court takes into
account the documents attached to the verified complaint (Doc. 1), the summary judgment
motion (Doc. 63), the motion to substitute (Doc. 70), and the reply to the motion to
substitute (Doc. 76). As such, Plaintiff’s motion is due to be granted in all respects.
Accordingly, it is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 63) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to provide the Court with a proposed judgment
setting out the requested relief.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 18th day of October, 2016.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
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?