Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cadles of Grassy Meadows Ii, L.L.C v. Jeffrey St. Clair and Cathleen St. Clair

March 15, 2012

CADLES OF GRASSY MEADOWS II, L.L.C., PLAINTIFF,
v.
JEFFREY ST. CLAIR AND CATHLEEN ST. CLAIR, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Cathleen St. Clair, pro se 3001 Ann Street Baldwin, New York 11510 *representing himself

Plaintiff Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC ("Plaintiff") sued Defendants Cathleen and Jeffrey St. Clair (collectively, "Defendants") to recover on a promissory note. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (Docket Entry 29). For the following reasons, this motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1 Statement ("Pl. 56.1 Stmt."). As discussed below, the Court deems Plaintiff's facts admitted.

Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized under West Virginia law with its principal place of business in Ohio. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1.) Defendants reside in Baldwin, New York. (Id. ¶ 2.)

Defendants executed a promissory note ("the Note") for a second mortgage on their property located in Baldwin, New York in the amount of $96,000. (Id. ¶ 5; Pl. Ex. A.) The Note was initially executed and delivered to the American Mortgage Express Corporation. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 5.) It was assigned to Residential Funding Corporation, then to JP Morgan Chase Bank, and finally to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 6; Pl. Ex. A.) The Note required Plaintiffs to pay $721.22 on the first of each month. (Id. ¶ 7; Pl. Ex. A.) Plaintiff also agreed to pay 8.25 percent annual interest. (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 7; Pl. Ex. A.) The Note provides that, in the event a default, Plaintiff would be entitled to accelerate Defendants' outstanding balance and to collect the amount of attorneys' fees that Plaintiff reasonably incurred in recovering on the Note. (Pl. Ex. A.)

Defendants defaulted on the Note (Pl. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10), and Plaintiff accelerated the outstanding balance (id. ¶¶ 9, 13). As of March 30, 2011, Defendants owed $94,218.27 and $27,831.68 in interest. (Stacey Johnson Aff. ¶ 13.)

DISCUSSION

On January 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed its statement of undisputed facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1. (Docket Entry 24.) Defendants filed their Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement on March 21, 2011. (Docket Entry 27.) Plaintiff then filed its motion for summary judgment. The Court will discuss the law governing Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statements and then consider the substance of Plaintiff's motion.

I. Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement

Local Rule 56.1 requires that a party moving for

summary judgment "submit a statement of the allegedly undisputed facts on which the moving party relies," as well as citations "to the admissible evidence of record supporting each such fact." Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 140 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing LOCAL CIV. R. 56.1 (a), (d)). The purpose of Local Civil Rule 56.1 is "to streamline the consideration of summary judgment motions by freeing district courts from the need to hunt through voluminous records without guidance from the parties." Gallo v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-Societa per Azioni, 585 F. Supp. 2d 520, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 292 (2d Cir. 2000)).

Local Civil Rule 56.1 provides that where a nonmoving party wishes to contest the assertions in the movant's 56.1 statement, he must "respond to each of the statement's paragraphs and include, if necessary, a statement of additional material facts that demonstrate a genuine issue for trial." LOCAL CIV. R. 56.1(b). In order for a counter-statement "to serve its purpose, it must respond appropriately to the movant's statement . . . and must cite admissible evidence in support of the non-movant's contention[s] . . . ." Gallimore-Wright v. Long Island R. Co., 354 F. Supp. 2d 478, 482. (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (internal citations omitted); see In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 390 F. Supp. 2d 319, 322, n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ("[M]erely because one party denies a properly-supported assertion in the other's Local Rule 56.1 Statement does not create an issue of fact if the cited evidence reveals no genuine factual dispute."); see also Dusanenko v. Maloney, 726 F.2d 82, 84 (2d Cir. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.