Cascade Capital Group, LLC v. Livingston Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 112

ORDER granting 76 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 02/04/2019 (Guirola, Louis)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
CASCADE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC

PLAINTIFF

v.

CAUSE NO. 3:17cv952-LG-FKB

LIVINGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC;
CHESTNUT DEVELOPERS, LLC;
DAVID LANDRUM; and MICHAEL L.
SHARPE

DEFENDANTS

AND
LIVINGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC;
CHESTNUT DEVELOPERS, LLC; and
MICHAEL L. SHARPE

COUNTERCLAIMANTS

v.
CASCADE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC

COUNTERDEFENDANT
AND

LIVINGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC;
CHESTNUT DEVELOPERS, LLC; and
MICHAEL L. SHARPE

THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS

v.
MARK CALVERT

THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS
TO DEFENDANT DAVID LANDRUM
BEFORE THE COURT is [76] Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to
Defendant David Landrum filed by Plaintiff Cascade Capital Group, LLC
(“Cascade”). Defendant David Landrum has not responded to the Motion, and his
time for doing so has long since run. Having considered the Motion, the record, and

applicable law, the Court concludes that Cascade’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings as to David Landrum should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This lawsuit derives from Defendants’ alleged default on a Promissory Note
(“the Note”), as modified by a subsequent Forbearance Agreement (“the
Agreement”), used to fund the re-development of the old Town of Livingston in
Madison County, Mississippi. (See Am. Compl., ECF No. 8.) Cascade’s Amended
Complaint seeks the appointment of a receiver to take possession and control of
Defendants’ property – which is designated as collateral in the Note and the
Agreement – and a joint and several judgment against Defendants for the principal
and interest due on the Note (as modified by the Agreement), attorneys’ fees, and
collection costs.
Defendants Livingston Holdings, LLC (“Livingston”), Chestnut Developers,
LLC (“Chestnut”), and Michael L. Sharpe filed amended answers to Cascade’s
complaint on August 21, 2018, asserting both counterclaims and third party claims.
(Sharpe Am. Answer, Countercl., & Third Party Compl., ECF No. 51; Livingston &
Chestnut Am. Answer, Countercl., & Third Party Compl., ECF No. 52.) However,
Defendant David Landrum filed an Answer in which he admitted to all of Cascade’s
allegations.
Cascade filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on October
12, 2018, after having already filed a [74] Motion for Summary Judgment as to
claims between Cascade and the other defendants on October 4, 2018. Given the

–2–

conflicting stances taken by the different defendants and the importance of avoiding
contradictory factual findings, the Court withheld ruling on the instant Motion until
first disposing of the summary judgment motion. The Court has now resolved the
summary judgment motion and determined, among other things, that (1) the Note
and the Agreement are enforceable and (2) Livingston, Chestnut, and Sharpe
breached those contracts. Accordingly, the Court turns now to the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings as to David Landrum.
II. DISCUSSION
The instant Motion argues that, as between Cascade and Landrum, the
material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the merits can be rendered by
looking to the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts. (Mem.
Supp. Mot. J. Pleadings 2, ECF No. 77 (citing Keys v. Safeway Ins. Co., 556 F. Supp.
2d 586, 588 (S.D. Miss. 2008).) “Landrum has admitted all of the allegations of the
Amended Complaint and has not asserted any affirmative defense that would
preclude entry of judgment against him.” (Id.)
a. Standard of Review
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is subject to the
same standard as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Doe v. MySpace, Inc.,
528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual

–3–

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion, the Court
accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and views them in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff. Linicomn v. Hill, 902 F.3d 529, 533 (5th Cir. 2018).
a. Analysis
A plaintiff asserting a breach of contract claim has the burden to prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, “1. the existence of a valid and binding contract; and
2. that the defendant has broken, or breached it.” Bus. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Banks, 90
So. 3d 1221, 1224-25 (Miss. 2012). Cascade alleges that Landrum executed the
Note and the Agreement, that these contracts are binding and enforceable under
Mississippi law, and that Landrum breached these contracts by failing to make
scheduled loan payments prescribed by the Note and the Agreement. Landrum
admits that the Note and the Agreement are valid, binding contracts, to which he is
a party, and that he defaulted on both. Cascade is therefore entitled to judgment on
the pleadings regarding its breach of contract claim against David Landrum.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [76] Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Defendant David Landrum filed by Plaintiff
Cascade Capital Group, LLC is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 4th day of February, 2019.
s/

Louis Guirola, Jr.

LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

–4–