Stohr v. Prime Texas Services, LLC et al

Filing 29

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (AD) cc: pro se defendants via US mail

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

CURTIS STOHR, as Trustee of 519 East
28th Street Trust 04112014,
Plaintiff,
Case No. C16-064RSL

10
11
12
13

v.
PRIME TEXAS SERVICES, LLC,
KATY PHEELAN, a/k/a Kathy Rose
Phelan, a/k/a Cathy Phelan, and
ALBERTO SAUL ALANIZ II,

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

17

Against Defendants Alaniz and Phelan” Dkt. # 23. Defendants have not opposed the

18

motion, and the Court considers such a failure to be “an admission that the motion has

19

merit.” Local Civil Rule 7(b)(2). The Court has also reviewed the motion on its merits

20

and finds that summary judgment is appropriate.

21

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment1 against defendants Alaniz and Phelan

22

for the following: $318,000 loan principle; interest through November 14, 2015 of

23

$18,661.41; post-default interest after November 14, 2015 through May 31, 2016 of

24
25
26

1

The Court has not made the finding specified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A unified
judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities will be entered at
the end of the action.
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - 1

1

$41,192.70; release fees of $101,760 as provided in Section 6 of the promissory note;

2

$6,360 as provided in Section 3.2 of the extension agreement; attorney’s fees of $10,800;

3

and court costs of $816. These items add up to a total of $497,590.11, as well as daily

4

interest of $209.10 for each day after May 31, 2016 until the loan is paid.

5
6

Dated this 23rd day of August, 2016.

7

A

8

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT - 2