Opinion
C.A. No. 09C-08-166 PLA.
Submitted: February 8, 2010.
Decided: February 17, 2010.
Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.
DENIEDMichael C. Hochman, Esquire, MONZACK, MERSKY, MCLAUGHLIN and BROWDER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Douglas M. Hershman, Esquire, and Vanessa R. Tiradentes, Esquire, BAYARD, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware, Attorneys for Defendant.
Kevin W. Goldstein, Esquire, STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS YOUNG, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for Third Party Defendant.
In this breach of contract action, Plaintiff Acadia Brandywine Town Center, LLC ("Acadia") seeks payment of rental fees and related expenses pursuant to a guaranty executed by Defendant Christopher Cresswell ("Cresswell") of a lease between Acadia and Delaware Home Furnishings d/b/a Drexel Heritage ("Drexel"). Cresswell has filed an Answer denying virtually all of the factually allegations in the Complaint that relate to Drexel's default and to his responsibility under the guaranty. He has also filed a Counterclaim against Acadia seeking a declaratory judgment against it or, alternatively, reformation of the Cresswell Guaranty to reflect the intention of the parties. In addition, Cresswell has filed a Third-Party Complaint against another guarantor, Furniture Brands International, Inc. ("FBN"), for breach of contract and, alternatively, indemnification or contribution. In that Complaint, Cresswell alleges that it was the parties' intent that FBN would be primarily liable for any defaults on the Lease, and that Cresswell's obligations were only to become effective in the sixth year of the Lease when the fixed minimum rent exceeded the amount that FBN guaranteed.
Acadia has also filed a companion case against FBN wherein it alleges a default by Drexel and a guaranty of the Lease by FBN. FBN has also denied all of the material allegations of that Complaint and has asserted numerous affirmative defenses.
While this case involves the alleged breach of the Lease between Acadia, the owner of the Brandywine Town Center, and Drexel, its Tenant. Drexel is currently the debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, and litigation involving Drexel is therefore subject to an automatic stay. Hence, Acadia has filed this action against Cresswell, as well as a similar lawsuit against FBN, seeking payment of unpaid rental fees pursuant to their respective guaranties.
In this, as well as the suit against FBN, Acadia has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that Drexel's purported breach of the Lease and the existence of the unconditional guaranties of payment by Cresswell herein, and by FBN in the companion case, are "undisputed."
As the Court has explained in its decision denying Acadia's Motion for Summary Judgment, this Motion similarly fails to comply with Rule 56 of the Superior Court Civil Rules, incorrectly states that issues of material fact are not in dispute, when in fact they are clearly contested, and prematurely seeks an award of summary judgment before discovery has even commenced. Acadia has failed to support its motions by anything other than blanket statements, without providing affidavits or certified copies of the documents upon which it purports to rely. The only submissions in the record at this stage are the Complaint filed by Acadia and the Answer, Counterclaim, and Third-Party Complaint filed by Defendant Cresswell. Nowhere in his Answer does Cresswell admit any of the pertinent factual allegations of the Complaint. To the contrary, the Counterclaim and the Third-Party Complaint against FBN serve to highlight the existence of many fact-intensive inquiries, and further emphasize that the facts necessary to resolve this case are intertwined with facts relevant to Cresswell's affirmative claims. Moreover, Cresswell has submitted an Affidavit — the only verified or certified document in the record at this stage — that clearly places in controversy many of Acadia's claimed "undisputed" issues of fact, including whether the guaranty reflects the intention of the parties, the timing of Cresswell's obligations under the guaranty, and the effect of FBN's obligations as a guarantor upon Cresswell. Furthermore, the Counterclaim raises several issues of material fact that are additional to those presented in the Complaint and Answer and that arise out of the same set of transactions upon which Acadia's claims are based.
See Acadia Brandywine Town Ctr, LLC v. Furniture Brands Int'l, Inc., C.A. No. 09C-08-167 (Del. Super. Feb. 17, 2010).
One final point is worthy of mention. As the Court noted in denying the similar motion for summary judgment filed by Acadia against FBN in the related case, motions such as this unfairly tax the Court's limited resources and require it to spend unnecessary time and attention that could be devoted to more legitimate claims. The motion has also imposed a needless burden and expense on the defendant. A motion for summary judgment filed before any discovery has commenced and which plainly mischaracterizes the record has done nothing to move this litigation toward resolution and has been wasteful of the Court's and counsel's time. Counsel should in the future be far more circumspect before filing any dispositive motion, particularly one that has a little chance for success as that filed in this case.
In light of all of the reasons described above, summary judgment is plainly inappropriate at this stage, and even after full discovery, this case may not be susceptible to resolution by summary judgment. Accordingly, Acadia's Motion for Summary Judgment against Cresswell is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Original to Prothonotary
cc: Michael C. Hochman, Esquire
Douglas M. Hershman, Esquire