MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY v. MINUTEMAN SPILL RESPONSE, INC.
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER of Court denying 8 Motion for Relief from Judgment, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order of Court. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 9/2/2015. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS
TRUST COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MINUTEMAN SPILL RESPONSE, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 3:14-mc-18
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. Introduction
Presently before this Court is Defendant Minuteman’s Motion for Relief from
Judgment Entered by Confession (Petition to Open and/or Strike Off Judgment Entered by
Confession). (ECF No. 8). The issues have been fully briefed, and the matter is now ripe
for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion.
II. Procedural Background
On March 31, 2014, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company confessed
judgment against Minuteman in the amount of $4,669,164.35.
III. Legal Standard
A motion to open or vacate a judgment entered in the federal court is procedurally
governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. F.D.I.C. v. Deglau, 207 F.3d
153, 161 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Girard Trust Bank v. Martin, 557 F.2d 386, 389–90 (3d
1
Cir.1977)). The Court in Deglau further noted the following with regards to a motion to
strike a judgment:
A motion to strike a judgment will be granted only if a fatal defect or
irregularity appears on the face of the judgment, and the defect must be
alleged in the motion to strike. In determining whether there is a defect,
the court must review together the confession of judgment clause
complained of and the complaint itself. The facts averred in the complaint
are to be taken as true; if the debtor disputes their truth, the remedy is a
motion to open the judgment. Circumstances in which a judgment should
be stricken include a creditor's lack of authority to confess judgment;
entry of judgment by means not in accord with provisions of a warrant of
attorney; and warrants that are not in writing, or not signed directly by
the person to be bound by them.
Id. at 167 (internal citations omitted).
The Court further made the following observation regarding a motion to open
judgment:
A motion to open is to be granted “[i]f evidence is produced which in a
jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to the jury....” PA. R.
CIV.P. 2959(e). Thus, the standard of sufficiency is that of a directed
verdict. The district court is to view all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the petitioner and to accept as true all evidence and proper
inferences from it which support the defense while rejecting adverse
allegations of the party obtaining the judgment. The Pennsylvania rules
regarding challenges to confessed judgment require the petitioner to offer
“clear, direct, precise and ‘believable’ evidence” of his meritorious
defenses.
Id. at 168 (internal citations omitted).
IV. Analysis
a. Defendant’s argument
Minuteman argues that if the confession of judgment in this case is not stricken, “it
must be opened because the amount of the confessed judgment is patently excessive on its
2
face.” (ECF No. 9 at 5). Minuteman asserts that the attorney’s fees in the amount of
$410,214.57 “bears no reasonable relationship whatsoever to the work actually performed
or the attorney’s fees actually incurred and is, therefore, per se, punitive and
unconscionable.” (Id. at 9). Minuteman further asserts that because the bank’s improper
conduct prevented Minuteman from performing under the Loans, Minuteman is relieved
of its corresponding obligation under those loans. (Id. at 11). Minuteman also claims that
the bank breached the obligation of good faith and fear dealing, constituting a breach that
requires the opening of the judgment. (Id. at 16).
M&T Bank responds that “Minuteman has not alleged any fatal defect or
irregularity appearing on the face of the Judgment; thus, Minuteman’s request to strike
the Judgment should be denied on this basis alone.” (ECF No. 24 at 3). M&T Bank also
notes that Minuteman has no meritorious defense to the entry of the judgment and has
not produced any evidence to require submission of issues to a jury. (Id.). In addition,
M&T Bank claims that Minuteman’s argument to open judgment is meritless as it is based
on the erroneous premise that M&T Bank “unlawfully froze” Minuteman’s accounts after
receiving a valid warrant to search and seize, among other things, Minuteman’s bank
accounts. (Id.).
b. Discussion
The Court finds that Defendant Minuteman has presented insufficient evidence to
support its motion to open or strike the confessed judgment. Defendant has neither
pointed the Court to any fatal defects or irregularities, nor has it presented the Court with
any meritorious defenses to the confession of judgment.
3
In order to support a motion to open judgment, Minuteman must present evidence
that would require the issues to be presented to a jury. See Deglau, 207 F.3d at 168.
Minuteman has failed to present the Court with any evidence to satisfy the Court that the
issues should be presented to a jury. Defendant claims that the amount of the confessed
judgment is patently excessive on its face. (ECF No. 9 at 5). However, Plaintiff counters
that “[e]ach of the Minuteman Notes includes a warrant of attorney authorizing M&T
Bank to confess judgment for specified amounts.” (ECF No. 24 at 12). The Court finds that
the amounts included in the judgment were authorized by the warrant of attorney
contained in the Minuteman Notes. The Court also finds that the amount of attorney’s fees
awarded in the confession of judgment is not excessive. The Notes signed by Minuteman
specifically authorized the award of attorney’s fees. (Id. at 12–13). Thus, Minuteman has
failed to present a viable defense on the basis that the awarded attorney’s fees or the
amount of the confessed judgment are excessive.
Minuteman has also failed to satisfy the Court that a motion to strike the confessed
judgment is warranted. Minuteman has not pointed the Court to any fatal defect or
irregularity appearing on the face of the judgment. See Deglau, 207 F.3d at 167. Minuteman
claims that M&T Bank “unlawfully froze” its accounts. However, M&T Bank responds
that Minuteman’s accounts were frozen after receiving a valid warrant to search and seize.
(ECF No. 24 at 3). On May 29, 2013, M&T Bank was served with a search and seizure
warrant that was issued to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office by the Honorable
Norman A. Krumenacker as the Supervising Judge of the Thirty-Fourth Statewide
Investigating Grand Jury. (Id. at 4). M&T Bank states that it was obligated, as a matter of
4
law, to comply with the Warrant by, among other things, placing an administrative hold
on the accounts identified in the Warrant. (Id.). M&T Bank notes that the funds that were
seized pursuant to the Warrant are and remain subject to the first priority security interest
and M&T Bank’s right of recoupment. In addition, M&T Bank observes that the
Minuteman funds that are still being held by M&T Bank have been sequestered pursuant
to an agreement among Minuteman, M&T Bank and the Attorney General’s Office and an
order entered by the Grand Jury Court. (Id. at 5). Minuteman has failed to satisfy the Court
that its funds were “unlawfully frozen.” Consequently, Minuteman has failed to establish
any fatal defect or irregularity on the face of the judgment.
The Court finds that the other arguments raised by Minuteman in its Motion to
Strike and/or Open Confession of Judgment are without merit. Minuteman has failed to
present evidence to warrant granting its Motion.
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Defendant’s Motion to Strike and/or
Open Confession of Judgment shall be denied. The amount specified in the confession of
judgment and the amount of attorney’s fees was not excessive.
An appropriate order follows.
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS
TRUST COMPANY,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
~
CASE NO. 3:14-mc-18
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
MINUTEMAN SPILL RESPONSE, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
N~ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, on this
~ day of September, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant
Minuteman's Motion for Relief from Judgment Entered by Confession (Petition to Open and/or
Strike Off Judgment Entered by Confession) (ECF No. 8) , and in accordance with the
accompanying Memorandum Opinion,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?