Solomons One, LLC v. Donnelly et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 1 Bankruptcy Judge Catliota's Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law; GRANTING Summary Judgment to Plaintiff on Count 1; DENYING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment on Count 1; DISMIS SING Counts 2, 3 and 4 without prejudice as moot; directing that the Clerk of the Court close the case and certifying under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) that there is no just reason for delaying the entry of judgment on Count 1. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/14/2014. (kns, Deputy Clerk) Modified doc type on 5/14/2014 (kns, Deputy Clerk).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
SOLOMONS ONE, LLC,

*

PLAINTIFF,

*

v.

CASE NO.: PWG-14-627
*

CHARLES DONNELLY, et al.,
*
DEFENDANTS.
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINON AND ORDER
Solomons One, a Maryland LLC, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy and then instituted an
adversarial action against Defendants Charles Donnelly and Deborah Steffen, who are two of its
six members. Stmt. & Concl. 2, ECF No. 1. At issue is an Assignment of Contract Rights
(“Assignment”) that “purports to assign from Plaintiff to Donnelly . . . certain rights to construct
a pier on the Patuxent River adjacent to real property partially owned by Plaintiff.” Id. Plaintiff
challenges the validity of the Assignment by, inter alia, seeking in Count 1 “an order declaring
that the Assignment was not authorized in accordance with the terms of Plaintiff’s operating
agreement.” Id. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in In re Solomons One,
LLC, 13-24475-TJC, and Solomons One v. Donnelly, 13-580-TJC. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas J.
Catliota submitted his Proposed Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute and Proposed
Conclusions of Law Granting Summary Judgment to Plaintiff on Count 1 (“Statement and
Conclusions”), to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033, and Loc.
Bankr. R. 9033-1.

Judge Catliota “concludes that the Assignment was not authorized in

accordance with the terms of Plaintiff’s operating agreement,” such that Plaintiff holds the rights
to the pier. Stmt. & Concl. 3. On that basis, the court “grants summary judgment to Plaintiff on

Count 1 and avoids the Assignment, and denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment on that count.” Id. at 4. Additionally, Judge Catliota dismisses Counts 2, 3, and 4
without prejudice as moot. Id. at 20.
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(d) provides that “[t]he district judge shall make a de novo review
upon the record or, after additional evidence, of any portion of the bankruptcy judge’s findings
of fact or conclusions of law to which specific written objections have been made in accordance
with this rule.” (emphasis added). Neither party has filed an objection to the bankruptcy court’s
findings. See Docket; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(b). Failure to file timely written objections to the
bankruptcy judge’s findings constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal this Court’s order
adopting the findings. See In re Nantahala Village, Inc., 976 F.2d 876, 880 (4th Cir. 1992).
I have reviewed the bankruptcy court’s Statement and Conclusions, to which no
objections have been filed, and I have independently reviewed the record. I agree with the
findings and the outcome that the bankruptcy court reached. It is, this 14th day of May, 2014
ORDERED that:
1. Judge Catliota’s Proposed Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute and Proposed
Conclusions of Law Granting Summary Judgment to Plaintiff on Count 1, ECF No. 1, BE, and
HEREBY IS, ADOPTED AS AN ORDER OF THE COURT; and, as stated in the Statement and
Conclusions:
a. Summary judgment IS GRANTED to Plaintiff on Count 1;
b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on Count 1 IS DENIED;
and
c. Counts 2, 3, and 4 ARE DISMISSED without prejudice as moot; and

2 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of this Order to the parties and the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland and close this case.
Although Counts 5, 6, 7, and 8 remain pending, I certify under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) that
there is no just reason for delaying the entry of judgment on Count 1.
/S/
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
lyb

3