Sam Wang Produce, Inc., et al v. MS Grand, Inc. et al

Filing 330

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 1/21/2015. (kns, Deputy Clerk) Modified to include (c/m on 1/22/2015) (kns, Deputy Clerk).

--_FILED
-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*
*
*
*
*

SAM WANG PRODUCE, INC. ct al.
Plaintiffs
v.

__

ENTERED

UI~EO-

-RECEIVED

JAN

22 2015 ~

Civil No. PJM 10-2286

*
*
*

MS GRAND, INC., ct al.

*

Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This receivership

proceeding

Motion for Order Approving

is before the Court on the Receiver's

Wind Up of Rcceivership

Mun has filed the sale Objection

to Receiver's

reasons that follow, Mun's requested
Wind Up of Receivership

Final Report and

and Related Relief (Dkt. 327). Tong Sik

Final Report and Motion (Dkt. 328). For the

relief is DENIED and the Motion for Order Approving

and Related Relief is GRANTED.

I.
The factual and procedural
Order of March 22, 2013.
LLC as Temporary

background

of this case is set out more fully in the Court's

Briefly, the Court appointed

Equity Receiver (the "Receiver")

grocery stores owned by bankrupt defendants
Various parties intervened.

On September

Marc Weinsweig

of WeinsweigAdvisors

to oversee the assets and affairs of certain

MS Grand, Inc., Min Sik Kang and Man Sun Jang.

8, 2014 the Receiver

Approving

Settlement

Agreements

settlement

agreements

between the parties. The Court granted that Motion on October

On November
Order Approving

and Granting

Requested

filed a Motion for an Order

Relief, relating to two interrelated
1, 2014.

21, 2014 the Receiver filed his Final Report and the instant Motion for

Wind of Receivership

and Related Relief. Responses

were due by December

8,

2014. Four days later, on December 12,2014, Mun filed his current objection, styled "Objection
to Receiver's Final Report", in which he asserts claims against Grand Mart for purported
violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), and also a failure on the
part of the Receiver to properly notify him of the instant proceedings. Mun, who filed his
Objection pro se, is not a party to the action or the settlement agreement, nor has he formally
entered an appearance in this Court. The Receiver replied to Mun's Objection on December 15,
2014.
II.

Alier reviewing the Kang Companies' files and records over the course of the
receivership, the Receiver identified potential claimants who might have claims against the Kang
Companies, the Kang Companies' receivership estates, or assets or funds in the possession of the
Receiver. Mun was identified as one of these potential claimants. The Court also established a
timcline by which potential claimants could submit their claims to the Receiver, establishing
September 30, 2013 as the Claims Bar Date, by which time the claimant must have submitted the
claim to the Receiver or be forever barred from asserting the same. The Receiver served Mun
with the Bar Date Notice via first class mail on September 3, 2013 (Dkt. 108 at 2). On October 2,
2013, two days alier the Bar Date, Mun filed a claim with the Receiver for $178,966.65 against
Grant Mart International Food, LLC ("Grand Mart") (Dkt. 119-1 at 9). Eleven months later, on
September 9, 2014, the Receiver served Mun with the Motion for Order Approving Settlement
Agreements and Granting Related Reliefand Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion via
first class mail (Dkt. 311 at 72). Finally, on November 21,2014, the Receiver served Mun with a
Notice of the Final Report Motion (Dkt. 327-11 at 30). Only then, on December 12,2014, did

2

Mun pay mind to the fact that an over-all settlement had been reached in the proceeding and the
case was about to close.
[n his Objection, Mun opposes closure until such time as he is provided with every
pleading in this case and has had time to answer each such pleading, or until such time as this
Court "adds him" to the case "and/or" declares that a claim that he filed against Grand Mart in
the Eastern District of Virginia "does take precedent [sic] over this issue." In support, Mun
advances three arguments, none of which has merit.
First, he argues that the Receiver failed to provide him a copy of the Final Report "and/or
any other pertinent documents." But Mun, the record shows, was properly served with the Notice
of the Final Report Motion, which states that copies of the Final Report Motion or Memorandum
of Law may be obtained by contacting the Receiver's counsel. Mun apparently never did so.
Second, Mun argues that the Receiver was aware that he had tiled suit against Grand
Mart in the Eastern District of Virginia for violations of the ADEA, and that that court awarded
him a default judgment in the amount of $263,899. However, the record shows on December 12,
2014, the federal court in Virginia dismissed Mun's complaint without prejudice, stating that it
had just learned that Grand Mart was subject to another court proceeding and that its property
was under control of an equity receiver. See Order, ECF No. 28, Tong Sik Mun v. Grand Mart
Int'! Foods. LLC, 13-AJT-1229 (E.D.V.A. December 12,2014).1 Assuming that Mun is mistaken
and is not intentionally attempting to mislead this Court, the fact is that he has not been awarded
a default judgment against Grand Mart.

I As the Receiver correctly notes, the federal court in Virginia dismissed
Mun's complaint on the grounds that Grand
Mart is a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding, and appears to have inadvertently referenced Grand Mart as being a
debtor in the bankruptcy case of MS Grand. Inc. The Virginia federal court correctly staled that all of Grand Mart's
property is under the control of an equity receiver pursuant to Court Order. which is to say, the instant proceeding.
See Receiver's Reply Br. at 5 n.4 (Dk!. 329).

3

Third, Mun argues that the Receiver's failure to add him as a party with a claim has
prejudiced his ability to be justly compensated for the wrongful acts committed by Grand MarL
The Receiver argues correctly, however, that it had no obligation to add Mun as a party to this
case, Indeed, as noted above, Mun filed his claim after the Claims Bar Date expired which, per
this Court's August 9, 2013 Claims Bar Date Order (OkL 103 at 3-4), renders Mun forever
barred and permanently enjoined from asserting his claims, Even if Mun did have a valid claim,
it would at best be a pre-receivership unsecured claim. Under the Settlement Agreement that the
Court approved on October 1,2014, unsecured creditors are receiving no recovery at all. Given
Mun's dilatory assertion of his rights - despite fair notice of relevant proceedings and deadlines
and given the futility of his claim in any event - the Court tinds that Mun has suffered no unfair
prejudice and declines to afford him his requested relief:
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, Mun's Objection to Receiver's Final Report (OkL 328) is
OVERRULED.

The Court has reviewed and considered the Receiver's Final Report and Motion

for Order Approving Wind Up of Receivership and Related Relief: the Memorandum of Law
filed contemporaneously

therewith, and notes the absence of any objections to said Motion other

than Mun's. llaving found good cause for the requested relief, the Court GRANTS the Motion
for Order Approving Wind Up of Receivership and Related Relief (OkL 327).
A separate Order will ISSUE.

/s/
T R.J. MESSITTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT .JUDGE

7-{

.January _,2015

4