JPB Restaurant Group LLC v. Gringo's Cantina LLC et al

Filing 80

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 74 Report and Recommendation, granting 53 Motion for Summary Judgment as set out by JPB Restaurant Group LLC, Jacob Billingsley. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 5/9/24. (alew)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION JPB Restaurant Group LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Gringos Cantina LLC and Harold Dean ) White, ) ) Defendants, ) ________________________________ ) ) Gringos Cantina LLC and Harold Dean ) White, ) ) Counter-Claimants, ) ) v. ) ) Jacob Billingsley and JPB Restaurant ) Group LLC, ) ) Counter-Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) Case No. 6:21-cv-02943-DCC ORDER This matter is before the Court on JPB Restaurant Group LLC (“JPB”) and Jacob Billingsley’s (“Billingsley”) Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 53. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). February 28, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted. ECF No. 57. The Magistrate Judge advised Harold Dean White (“White”) of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. White has not filed objections and the time to do so has lapsed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation. JPB and Billingsley’s Motion for Summary Judgment [53] is GRANTED as to JPB’s claim for breach of contract against White and White’s counter claims against JPB and Billingsley are dismissed with prejudice. JPB is entitled to judgment against White for breach of contract for amount of the remaining balance, interest, and attorney's fees, as called for in the Promissory Notes together with damages in the amount of any unpaid regularly scheduled tax payments. Billingsley is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the Motion for Summary Judgment. JPB and Billingsley are directed to file a bill of costs within 14 days. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. May 9, 2024 Spartanburg, South Carolina s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge The Court notes that this action remains pending as to Defendant Gringos Cantina LLC. Default has been entered as to this Defendant; however, no motion for default judgment has yet been filed. Plaintiff is directed to file a motion for default judgment or a stipulation of dismissal as to this Defendant within 14 days. 1

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?