Bitler Inv. Venture II, LLC v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC
| Decision Date | 20 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | CAUSE NO.: 1:04-CV-477-TLS |
| Parties | BITLER INVESTMENT VENTURE II, LLC, BITLER INVESTMENT VENTURE III, LLC, BITLER INVESTMENT VENTURE V, LLC, BITLER INVESTMENT VENTURE VI, LLC, MELCHING INVESTMENT VENTURE II, LLC, MELCHING INVESTMENT VENTURE III, LLC, MELCHING INVESTMENT VENTURE V, LLC, MELCHING INVESTMENT VENTURE VI, LLC, and TWO PORTLAND PROPERTIES #1, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUM, LLC, SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC, and MARATHON OIL COMPANY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
In this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs seek recovery under the theories of breach of contract and waste for alleged damage to fourteen different pieces of commercial property in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. The Defendants and/or their predecessors in interest leased several gasoline stations from the Plaintiffs and/or their predecessors in interest, and the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants and their predecessors in interest neglected and destroyed the leased commercial properties and thereby injured the Plaintiffs' rights and interests in the properties.
This matter is before the Court on the following summary judgment motions: the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on All Environmental Claims Brought Under All Counts [ECF No. 129]; the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Non-Environmental Claims at Selected Properties [ECF No. 131]; and the Defendants' Motionfor Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims on All Counts [ECF No. 144].
On December 17, 2004, the Plaintiffs instituted this lawsuit. In their twenty-eight count Complaint [ECF No. 1], they named Marathon Ashland Petroleum as the Defendant. On January 21, 2005, they filed a First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 17], adding Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC and Marathon Oil Company as Defendants. The Plaintiffs premise this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On February 28, 2005, the Defendants filed their Answer [ECF No. 34], and on March 15, they filed their Amended Answer [ECF No. 40].
On August 2, 2007, the Defendants filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on All Environmental Claims Brought Under All Counts [ECF No. 129] and a Brief in Support [ECF No. 130]. On September 4, the Plaintiffs filed a Brief in Response [ECF No. 154] with attached Appendix/Statement of Genuine Issues [ECF No. 154-2], and a Submission of Evidence [ECF No. 155] (with attached exhibits). On September 24, the Defendants filed a Reply [ECF No. 174].
On August 15, the Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Non-Environmental Claims at Selected Properties [ECF No. 131], a Brief in Support [ECF No. 132], a Submission of Evidence [ECF No. 133] (with attached Exhibits), and an Appendix/Statement of Material Facts [ECF No. 134]. On September 17, the Plaintiffs filed a Brief in Response [ECF No. 164] with attached Appendix/Statement of Genuine Issues [ECF No. 164-2] and a Submission of Evidence [ECF No. 165] (with attached exhibits). On October 5,the Defendants filed a Reply [ECF No. 181].
On August 16, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Claims on All Counts [ECF No. 144] and a Brief in Support [ECF No. 145]. On September 18, the Plaintiffs filed a Brief in Opposition [ECF No. 169] with attached Appendix/Statement of Genuine Issues [ECF No. 169-2] and a Submission of Evidence [ECF No. 170] (with attached exhibits). On October 8, the Defendants filed a Reply [ECF No. 182] (with attached exhibits).
These summary judgment motions are the last three in a series of summary judgment motions filed by the parties that together seek summary judgment on each of the twenty-eight counts asserted by the Plaintiffs. The Court has already issued Opinions and Orders [ECF Nos. 218, 224, & 234] granting the following summary judgment motions: the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on All Issues Regarding the Celina, Ohio Property (Counts 23 and 24) [ECF No. 91]; the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on All Issues Regarding the Huntington, Indiana Property (Counts 5 and 6) and Ligonier, Indiana Property (Counts 25 and 26) [ECF No. 119]; and the Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on All Issues Regarding the Hillsdale, Michigan (Counts 11 and 12), Monroe, Michigan (Counts 13 and 14), and Sturgis, Michigan (Counts 27 and 28) Properties [ECF No. 125].1 Consequently,Counts 1 to 4, 7 to 10, and 15 to 22 remain for the Court to address in ruling on the pending summary judgment motions, which the Court does in this Opinion and Order.
Counts 1 and 2 of the Amended Complaint relate to commercial property in Angola, Indiana, which is owned by Plaintiffs Bitler Investment Venture II, LLC and Melching Investment Venture II, LLC. Counts 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint relate to commercial property in North Manchester, Indiana, which is owned by Plaintiffs Bitler Investment Venture II, LLC and Melching Investment Venture II, LLC. Counts 7 and 8 of the Amended Complaint relate to commercial property in Coldwater, Michigan, which is owned by Plaintiffs Bitler Investment Venture VI, LLC and Melching Investment Venture VI, LLC. Counts 9 and 10 of the Amended Complaint relate to commercial property in Adrian, Michigan, which is owned by Plaintiffs Bitler Investment Venture VI, LLC and Melching Investment Venture VI, LLC. Counts 15 and 16 of the Amended Complaint relate to commercial property in Michigan Center, Michigan, which is owned by Plaintiffs Bitler Investment Venture VI, LLC and Melching Investment Venture VI, LLC. Counts 17 and 18 of the Amended Complaint relate to commercial property in Battle Creek, Michigan, which is owned by Plaintiffs Bitler Investment Venture VI, LLC and Melching Investment Venture VI, LLC. Counts 19 and 20 of the Amended Complaint relate to commercial property in Owosso, Michigan, which is owned by Plaintiffs Bitler Investment Venture VI, LLC and Melching Investment Venture VI, LLC. Counts 21 and 22 of the Amended Complaint relate to commercial property in Portland, Michigan, which is owned by Plaintiff Two Portland Properties #1, LLC.
In their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege generally that the Defendants left these properties in a damaged condition with remaining environmental uncertainties and that theDefendants returned the properties to the owners in a condition that was both unsaleable and untenantable at fair market rates. In their breach of contract claims (Counts 1, 3, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19, and 21), the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to perform their obligations under the commercial lease agreements and that by their breach they have caused the Plaintiffs to suffer damages. In their waste claims (Counts 2, 4, 8, 10, 16, 18, 20, and 22), the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants occupied the subject properties under valid and binding lease agreements, destroyed, misused, altered, mutilated, and damaged the properties, and left the properties in a damaged condition, that the Plaintiffs have had to spend their own monies to restore the properties, and that the Plaintiffs have suffered damages in the value of the properties. As to their waste claims on Michigan properties (Counts 8, 10, 16, 18, 20, and 22), the Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to double the amount of their actual damages under Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2919.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a court shall grant a motion for summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists when "'there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.'" AA Sales & Assocs. v. Coni-Seal, Inc., 550 F.3d 605, 608-09 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). A court's role on summary judgment is not to weigh the evidence, make credibility determinations, or decide which inferences to draw from the facts, but instead to determine whether there is agenuine issue of triable fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Washington v. Haupert, 481 F.3d 543, 550 (7th Cir. 2007); Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003). A court in ruling on a summary judgment motion construes all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. AA Sales & Assocs., 550 F.3d at 609.
In 1983, George O. Bitler (Mr. Bitler), his wife, Mary Bitler (Mrs. Bitler), Max E. Melching (Mr. Melching), and his wife, J. Maxine Melching (Mrs. Melching), in various combinations as landlord or lessor entered into lease agreements—identical in substance—with R.I. Marketing, Inc., involving their commercial properties, including the Angola, North Manchester, Adrian, Battle Creek, Coldwater, Michigan Center, Owosso and Portland properties. (Compl. Exs. 1, 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, 24, and 29, ECF No. 1.)3 These leases were for eleven-year terms, running from December 1, 1983, to November 30, 1994, and included renewal options. The lease agreements included a term regarding use of the leased premises to the effect that, during the lease term, the lessee would use the leased premises in a careful and proper manner and for lawful purposes only, and would, at its own expense, comply with any and all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations relating to the occupancy or use of the leasedpremises. Another lease term provided that no building or improvement located or constructed on the leased premises would be removed or materially altered (except by way of addition) without the prior written consent of the lessors, except that existing buildings or improvements might be...
To continue reading
Request your trial