RehabCare Group East, Inc. et al v. Stratford Health Care Properties, LLC

Filing 71

ORDER denying plaintiffs' 62 Motion w/o prejudice to reassertion at a later date. If plaintiffs wish to add Valley View State Bank as a defendant, they must first obtain leave of Court to alter its Amended Scheduling Order. Signed on 10/26/15 by District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
REHABCARE GROUP EAST, INC. d/b/a
REHABCARE GROUP THERAPY
SERVICES, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STRATFORD MO/KAN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No: 4:14-cv-886-FJG
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Prejudgment
Attachment, or in the Alternative, for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 62).

In

particular, plaintiffs seek entry of an order attaching all sums owed by non-party Hidden
Lake Management, LLC under a note executed in favor of Stratford Properties
Management.1 In the alternative, plaintiff seeks an order enjoining dissipation of those
funds.
In response to plaintiffs’ renewed motion for prejudgment attachment or
preliminary injunction, defendants indicate that the request for attachment should be
denied because the note is encumbered by a valid lien held by Valley View State Bank,
and Stratford Properties assigned, pledged, and granted the Note and payments
thereunder to Valley View as collateral for a business loan. Defendants indicate that
under the Fraudulent Transfer Act, a debtor’s property cannot be fraudulently conveyed

1

Stratford Properties Management, LLC is wholly owned by defendant Stratford
MO/Kan Development Corporation.

“to the extent it is encumbered by a valid lien.” R.S. Mo. § 428.009(d)(2)(a). Therefore,
defendants argue that Valley View State Bank’s valid lien precludes attachment as a
matter of law. Furthermore, defendants argue that plaintiffs cannot establish irreparable
harm in an inquiry on preliminary injunction because plaintiffs could never be entitled to
recover the funds due to Valley View State Bank’s prior perfected security interest in the
same collateral. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir.
1981).
In reply suggestions to their motion, plaintiffs note that the Promissory Note,
which was first produced by defendants in their response, shows that the final payment
under the Note was due on August 31, 2015, approximately one week before
defendants filed their suggestions in opposition.

Plaintiffs suppose that the final

payment, therefore, has already gone to Valley View Bank, and now it appears to be too
late for plaintiffs to obtain relief. See reply, Doc. No. 66, pp. 1-2. Plaintiffs, however,
argue that Valley View State Bank’s security interest is unassailable under Missouri law
only if it took such interest in “good faith and for reasonably equivalent value.” R.S.Mo.
§ 428.044.1. If not, plaintiffs may be able to void the pledge, attach funds, and obtain a
money judgment against the bank.

See R.S.Mo. § 428.039.

Therefore, plaintiffs

request the Court stay their motion in order to allow plaintiffs to obtain discovery from
Valley View State Bank and add it as a defendant to this action.
Instead of staying briefing on the pending motion, the Court finds the better
course of action would be to DENY plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. No. 66) WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to reassertion at a later date.

The Court notes that the deadline for

amending the complaint and/or adding parties passed on April 7, 2015. See Amended

2

Scheduling Order, Doc. No. 51, pp. 2-4. Therefore, if plaintiffs wish to add Valley View
State Bank as a defendant, they must first obtain leave of Court to alter its Amended
Scheduling Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 26, 2015
Kansas City, Missouri

S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
United States District Judge

3