Presidential Facility, LLC v. Pinkas et al

Filing 155

ORDER WITHDRAWING ORDER TO SHOWCAUSE AND PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
PRESIDENTIAL FACILITY, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-12346
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.
CHRISTOPHER J. DEBBAS and
JAMES R. GRIFFITHS,
Defendants,
and
GREGORY S. CAMPBELL and
ROBERT PINKAS,
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
PETER SINATRA, EMERALD PARTNERS V, LP,
and JETDIRECT AVIATION HOLDINGS, LLC,
Third-Party Defendants.
/

ORDER WITHDRAWING SHOW CAUSE AND PERMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING
On December 12, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff’s second Motion for Summary Judgment
because it was unclear whether Plaintiff satisfied its obligations to trigger the co-guarantor’s duties
under the guaranty agreement. The Court noted that it found it troubling that Plaintiff failed to
produce any financial documents that evidenced that Plaintiff satisfied its obligations. After the
Court’s decision, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its decision denying
Plaintiff’s second Motion for Summary Judgment. In its Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff

attached additional evidence for the Court to review. On January 19, 2012, Plaintiff also attached
additional financial documents evidencing wire transfers between Comerica Bank and Wachovia
Bank in Plaintiff’s response brief to Defendant Pinkas’ recently filed Motion to Stay (currently
pending before this Court). On January 27, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why
Plaintiff failed to submit all of its evidence regarding whether Plaintiff satisfied its obligations under
the guaranty agreement to the Court while the Court was addressing Plaintiff’s two motions for
summary judgment.
Plaintiff timely submitted a response addressing the Court’s order to show cause. The
response sets forth in detail as to why Plaintiff continued to submit additional evidence to the Court
after the Court addressed Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff also thoroughly
explains why there is no genuine dispute that Plaintiff satisfied its obligations under the guaranty
agreement. Plaintiff attached numerous exhibits, including financial records evidencing payment,
that support Plaintiff’s position.
In reviewing Plaintiff’s response and the attached exhibits, it appears to the Court that
Plaintiff satisfied its obligations under the guaranty agreement, thus triggering Defendants’
obligations to Plaintiff. Because this is the sole issue that remains in dispute in this case, the Court
finds no reason for this case to proceed to a trial on the merits if Plaintiff has produced sufficient
evidence to entitle it to a judgment against Defendants. The Court, however, also finds it proper to
permit Defendants the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s response (and attached exhibits) as to
whether Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against Defendants because Plaintiff has shown that it paid
its obligation to Wachovia Bank and thus, triggered Defendants’ obligations under the guaranty
agreement.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the January 27, 2012, Order to Show Cause
is WITHDRAWN [dkt 150].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may file a response to Plaintiff’s response brief
attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Oversize Brief [dkt 152]. Defendants must file their
responses no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 8, 2012. Defendants’ responses must conform to E.D.
Mich. L.R. 7.1(d).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendants’ responses no later
than 5:00 p.m. on March 22, 2012. Plaintiff’s reply must conform to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: February 9, 2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record
by electronic or U.S. mail on February 9, 2012.

s/Marie E. Verlinde
Case Manager
[phone]

3