Regions Bank v. Continuum Healthcare, LLC et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting as to liability and denying as to damages re 57 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 5/1/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(af)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
REGIONS BANK

)
)
v.
)
)
CONTINUUM HEALTHCARE, LLC, et al. )

NO. 3:11-0831
JUDGE CAMPBELL

ORDER
Pending before the Court is Regions Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment Against
Defendant, Bobby G. Rouse, Ph.D. (Docket No. 57). Defendant Rouse has filed an Objection
(Docket No. 62) in opposition. Regions Bank has filed a Response (Docket No. 69). For the
reasons described herein, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to liability and
DENIED as to damages.
Regions Bank, Plaintiff, has moved for Summary Judgment against Bobby G. Rouse,
Defendant, based on an Individual Guaranty. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of
$3,997,215.08, plus interest from the date of the Motion for Summary Judgment at the Federal
Judgment Rate, 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Pennington v.
State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 553 F.3d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 2009). The party bringing the
summary judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the Court of the basis for its motion
and identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute over
material facts. Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003). The moving party may
satisfy this burden by presenting affirmative evidence that negates an element of the non-moving
party’s claim or by demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.
Id.

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must review all the evidence, facts
and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Van Gorder v. Grand Trunk
Western Railroad, Inc., 509 F.3d 265, 268 (6th Cir. 2007). The Court does not, however, weigh
the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, or determine the truth of the matter. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court determines whether sufficient evidence
has been presented to make the issue of fact a proper jury question. Id. The mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party’s position will be insufficient to survive
summary judgment; rather, there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the
nonmoving party. Rodgers, 344 F.3d at 595.
Defendant Rouse’s responses to Regions Bank’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (Docket
No. 63) make clear that there is no material fact in dispute regarding liability. (See ¶¶ 2, 3, 8 and 9
of Docket No. 63). Regions Bank is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Individual
Guaranty. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Regions
Bank and against Defendant Bobby G. Rouse as to liability.
It is equally clear that the parties dispute the amount of damages. See ¶¶ 11 and 12. The
Court finds there is a material fact in dispute as to the amount of damages. Accordingly, the
Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to damages.
The trial remains set for July 16, 2013. The pretrial conference will be held on July 8,
2013, at 9:00 a.m., as scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE