Customers Bank v. Anmi, Inc. et al
Filing
25
OPINION. Summary Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs. Because, beyond the affidavit of Ms. Hansen, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence supporting their damages, costs, and attorneys fees, this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Freeman for an inquest on damages. re: 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Customers Bank. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/20/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (rjm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
CUSTOMERS BANK, F/KiA NEW CENTURY BANK
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE F.....-IL~E-D-r::
rD=-=E::-:"C~2~O-2~01~21
Plaintiff,
-v-
11 Civ. 07992 (AJN)
OPINION
ANMI, INC., D/B/A/NATURALLY TASTY AND
HYON CHON WASHINGTON,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
)(
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Complaint in this matter was filed on November 8, 2011. Defendant Hyon Chon
Washington was served on February 8, 2012, and subsequently sent an Answer in this case
directly to Judge Marrero's chambers, which was received on February 22,2012. (D.E. 4, 7, 9).
On February 29,2012, the matter was reassigned to the undersigned, and on March 1,2012, this
Court scheduled a status conference and notified Defendants that, by law, corporations are not
permitted to proceed pro se. (D.E. 8, 9).
The status conference occurred as scheduled on April 26, 2012. (D.E. 11) At that time,
no appearance on behalf of Defendants had been noticed and neither Defendants nor counsel for
Defendants appeared at the conference. (D.E. 11). That day, the Court issued an order granting
Plaintiffs' request to file a motion for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings in light
of the Answer filed in this matter, and directed counsel for Plaintiff to serve Defendants with a
copy of the Court's order. (D.E. 11). The Court further reiterated that corporations must, by
law, be represented by counsel and that if Washington intended to appear in this matter, she
should promptly notice an appearance. (D.E. 11).
On June 15,2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, with a certificate of
service filed the next day attesting that service was made on June 8, 2012. (D.E. 13). On June
14,2012, this Court's Pro Se Office received a letter from Washington representing that she had
not been aware of the April 26, 2012, status conference, had not been aware that corporations
could not proceed pro se, and that she was in the process of obtaining counsel. (D.E. 21).
Washington further asserted that she needed a month to obtain counsel and requested that the
Court stay the proceedings for that period, and represented that "[i]n the meantime, [she would]
file an appearance through the courts' pro se office." (D .E. 21)
The Court granted Washington's request and stayed this case until July 20,2012. (D.E.
21). The Court further instructed Washington to "immediately notice an appearance with the pro
se office." (D.E.21) To ensure that Washington received this order, the Court both directed
Plaintiff s counsel to serve a copy of the order and sent a copy of the order to the return address
that Washington provided on her correspondence to the Court. (D.E. 21). This order was also
served on Defendants on July 2,2012. (D.E.22).
The stay of this matter has now expired and, despite the over five months that have
elapsed since the Court entered the stay and Washington represented that she would appear in
this action pro se, no appearance has been entered on Defendants' behalf and the Court has not
received any further correspondence from Defendants. The Court further notes that Defendants
were provided yet another opportunity to participate in this action after the Court issued its
August 17, 2012, order requesting additional briefing, which provided an opportunity for
Defendants to respond to that additional briefing. No response has been received.
The Court will, therefore, now consider Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
unopposed. However, under Second Circuit law, "[ e]ven when a motion for summary judgment
is unopposed, the district court is not relieved of its duty to decide whether the movant is entitled
2
to judgment as a matter of law." Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 BEARGRAM Co., 373 F.3d 241,
242 (2d Cir. 2004); see also St. Clair Jones v. Lamont, 379 Fed. Appx. 58, 59 (2d Cir. May 27,
2010) (unpublished). The Court therefore assesses Plaintiffs motion on the merits and finds, as
described below, that it has satisfied its burden to show it is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs motion.
II. ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is proper only if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 687
F.3d 554, 588 (2d Cir. 2012). In reviewing the evidence on a motion for summary judgment,
courts are to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw
all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. Id. A fact is material ifit might affect the
outcome of the suit under the governing law and an issue is genuine if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
Plaintiff requests that summary judgment be granted in its favor for a monetary judgment.
(D.E. 13). Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are liable to them for default on a promissory note
whereby Defendant Anmi Inc. ("Anmi") agreed to pay the sum of $230,000, plus interest, to the
Plaintiff.l "To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff suing on a promissory
note needs to merely establish the absence of a genuine issue as to the execution and default
unless the obligor demonstrates the existence of a triable issue of fact." Fragin v. Mezei, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18456, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13,2012) (quotation marks omitted) (collecting
cases). Under New York law, a prima facie case of default is demonstrated by proof of the valid
note and of the defendants' failure, despite proper demand, to make payment. Id. at *10;
I
The affidavit of Kathleen Hansen reflects that at least some payments were made on this note. (D.E. 14).
3
CAMOFI Master LDC v. College P'ship, 452 F. Supp. 2d 462,470 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (explaining
that a prima jacie case requires merely proof a note and failure to make payment, and that once
such aprimajacie case is shown, the burden is on the defendant to establish a defense). "A
plaintiff can meet its burden of providing proof of the valid notes by presenting them on its
motion for summary judgment." Id. at *10-11.
Plaintiff has presented in support of its motion for summary judgment a promissory note,
executed by Hyon Chong Washington as President of Anmi, in the amount of$230,000.
(Hansen Aff. Ex. A). According to the uncontested affidavit of Kathleen Hansen, Vice President
of Plaintiff in charge of the collection of the account, Plaintiff extended funds relative to the note
and Anmi has failed to make all of the payments required, despite Plaintiff s demand. (Hansen
Aff.
~
1, 7, 9-10,15). Plaintiff has thus demonstrated aprimajacie case of default, and
Defendants have not submitted evidence or argument to meet their burden to respond to this
case. Summary judgment is, therefore, GRANTED as to Defendant Anmi's liability to Plaintiff
on the promissory note.
Plaintiff also contends that Washington is jointly and severally liable as guarantor of the
underlying promissory note. In support, Plaintiff has submitted an "Unconditional Guarantee"
naming Washington as the guarantor on Anmi's obligation on the promissory note, signed by
Washington. (Hansen Aff. Ex. C).
Guaranties are governed by the rules of contracts. "A valid guaranty must be a
written instrument guaranteeing payment of another's debt, describing with
precision the obligation to which the person is bound. Consideration for the
guaranty must be expressly or impliedly stated in the instrument, and the
instrument must be delivered to, and accepted by, the guarantor. Further, liability
under a guaranty depends on the terms of the underlying promissory note."
MM Ariz. Holdings LLC v. Bonanno, 658 F. Supp. 2d 589, 592 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting
Export-Import Bank ojthe United States v. Agricola del Mar BCS, S.A. de C. V, 536 F. Supp. 2d
4
345 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)). Here, liability on the promissory note has been established, consideration
is explicit in the guarantee as "the Loan or any accommodation by Lender as to the Loan," and
the guarantee is signed by Washington. (Hansen Aff. Ex. C). Summary judgment is therefore
GRANTED as to Defendant Washington's liability.
Plaintiffs also seek an Order of Possession based on foreclosure of its security interest in
Anmi's "Collateral" under that agreement, and the provision of the security agreement allowing
them to "take immediate possession of the Collateral." (Hansen Aff. Ex. A, Security Agreement
§§ 1.3,2, 8(a)(i)). Plaintiff has submitted with its summary judgment motion UCC Financing
Statements relating to the Collateral and evidence of the submission of those statements to the
New York Department of State and New York City Department of Finance. (Hansen Aff. Ex.
B).; see also United States ex reI. Solera Constr. v. JA. Jones Constr. Group, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 34065, at *8-9 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); N.Y. U.e.e. §§ 9-301(a), et seq. Because Anmi has
defaulted, and no defense to foreclosure has been presented, Plaintiff's request for an order of
possession in GRANTED. See Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. Munir Walji, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 50425, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 11,2011); Merrill Lynch Cammer. Fin. Corp. v. Am. Std.
Testing & Consulting Labs., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2278, at *21-25 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12,
2010); Southland Corp. v. Froelich, 41 F. Supp. 2d 227,248-249 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
CONCLUSION
5
Summary Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs. Because, beyond the affidavit
of Ms. Hansen, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence supporting their damages, costs, and
attorneys fees, this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Freeman for an inquest on damages.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December lfL, 2012
New York,~ew York
United States District Judge
IZ
PrZo 5ef (?~~ON )l
COPIES \1AII ED
TO(
.
6
J
II
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?