In re Heating Supply Co., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 03 B 49243-49246. (Jointly Administered) (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2/26/2007), Bankruptcy No. 03 B 49243-49246. (Jointly Administered)
| Decision Date | 26 February 2007 |
| Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 03 B 49243-49246. (Jointly Administered),Adv. No. 05 A 02700. |
| Parties | IN RE: BUILDERS PLUMBING AND HEATING SUPPLY CO., INC., et al., Chapter 7, Debtors. DAVID E. GROCHOCINSKI, not personally, but as CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE for the estates of Builders Plumbing and Heating Supply Co., Inc., Glendale Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., Southwest Pipe & Supply, Inc., and Spesco, Inc., Plaintiff, v. RUTHE LEDERMAN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois |
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of David E. Grochocinski, the Chapter 7 trustee (the "Trustee") of the bankruptcy estates of Builders Plumbing and Heating Supply Co., Inc. ("Builders"), Glendale Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., Southwest Pipe & Supply, Inc., and Spesco, Inc. (collectively the "Debtors"), for partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7056 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on his complaint against Ruthe Lederman ("Lederman") to avoid certain transfers as preferential under 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b) and 550(a).1 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the Trustee's motion for summary judgment under Counts I and III of the complaint. The Trustee is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the prime rate of 8.25% commencing from December 5, 2005. Further, the Trustee's taxable costs of $250.00 are hereby assessed against Lederman under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The trial scheduled to commence on July 30, 2007 will go forward with respect to Count II of the complaint.
The Court has jurisdiction to entertain this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and Internal Operating Procedure 15(a) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) and (H).
In order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must meet the statutory criteria set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable to adversary proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7056. Rule 56(c) reads in part:
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P.56(c); see also Estate of Allen v. City of Rockford, 349 F.3d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 2003).
The primary purpose of granting a summary judgment motion is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute. Trautvetter v. Quick, 916 F.2d 1140, 1147 (7th Cir. 1990); Farries v. Stanadyne/Chi. Div., 832 F.2d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Wainwright Bank & Trust Co. v. Railroadmen's Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass'n of Indianapolis, 806 F.2d 146, 149 (7th Cir. 1986)). Where the material facts are not in dispute, the sole issue is whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. ANR Advance Transp. Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 710, 153 F.3d 774, 777 (7th Cir. 1998). On a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he court has one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial." Payne v. Pauley, 337 F,3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). Summary judgment is the "put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of the events." Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted).
In 1986, the United States Supreme Court decided a trilogy of leases that encourages the use of summary judgment as a means to dispose of factually unsupported claims. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Matsushita Elec., Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986), The burden is on the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact is in dispute. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 585-86.
All reasonable inferences drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Roger Whitmore's Auto. Servs., Inc. v. Lake County, Ill., 424 F.3d 659, 666-67 (7th Cir. 2005); Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Ill., Inc., 163 F.3d 1027, 1032 (7th Cir. 1998). The existence of a material factual dispute is sufficient only if the disputed fact is determinative of the outcome under applicable law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Fritcher v, Health Care Serv. Corp., 301 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir. 2002). "`Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.'" Fritcher, 301 F.3d at 815 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). "[S]ummary judgment is not an appropriate occasion for weighing the evidence; rather, the inquiry is limited to determining if there is a genuine issue for trial." Lohorn v. Michal, 913 F.2d 327, 331 (7th Cir. 1990). The Seventh Circuit has noted that trial courts must remain sensitive to fact issues where they are actually demonstrated to warrant denial of summary judgment. Opp v. Wheaton Van Lines, Inc., 231 F.3d 1060, 1065-66 (7th Cir. 2000); Szymanski v. Rite-Way Lawn Maint. Co., 231 F.3d 360, 364 (7th Cir. 2000).
The "party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the ... court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the `pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 ). Once the motion is supported by a prima facie showing that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in its pleadings; rather, its response must show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587; Patrick v. Jasper County, 901 F.2d 561, 565 (7th Cir. 1990).
Rule 56(d)2 provides for the situation when judgment is not rendered upon the whole matter, but only a portion thereof. The relief sought pursuant to subsection (d) is styled partial summary judgment. Partial summary judgment is available to dispose of one or more counts of a complaint in their entirely. Commonwealth Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. O. Henry Tent & Awning Co., 266 F.2d 200, 201 (7th Cir. 1959); Biggins v. Oltmer Iron Works, 154 F.2d 214, 216-17 (7th Cir. 1946); Quintana v. Byrd, 669 F. Supp. 849, 850 (N.D. Ill. 1987); Strandell v. Jackson County, Ill., 648 F. Supp. 126, 136 (S.D. Ill. 1986); Arado v. Gen. Fire Extinguisher Corp., 626 F.Supp. 506, 509 (N.D. Ill. 1985); Capitol Records, Inc. v. Progress Record Distrib. Inc., 106 F.R.D. 25, 28 (N.D. Ill. 1985); In re Network 90 Degrees, Inc., 98 B.R. 821, 831 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989). Rule 56(d) provides a method whereby a court can narrow issues and facts for trial after denying in whole or in part a motion properly brought under Rule 56. Capitol Records, 106 F.R.D. at 29. In the case at bar, the Trustee effectively seeks partial summary judgment as his motion relates only to the first and third counts of the complaint. The second count of the complaint under which the Trustee seeks to avoid the transfers as fraudulent pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544 and 548, and 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 160/9(b) is not the subject of this motion.
Local Bankruptcy Rule 7056-1 of the Local Bankruptcy Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which deals with summary judgment motions, was modeled after LR56.1 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Hence, the case law construing LR56.1 and its predecessor Local Rule 12 applies to Local Bankruptcy Rule 7056-1.
Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 7056, a motion for summary judgment imposes special procedural burdens on the parties. Specifically, the Rule requires the movant to supplement the motion and supporting memorandum with a statement of undisputed material facts ("7056-1 statement"). The 7056-1 statement Local Bankr.R. 7056-1B.
As required, the Trustee filed a 7056-1 statement that complies with the Local Rule. It includes numbered paragraphs outlining undisputed material facts along with specific references to supporting exhibits. In addition, the Trustee submitted an affidavit in support of his alleged undisputed material facts.
The party opposing a summary judgment motion is required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 7056-2 to respond ("7056-2 statement") to the movant's 7056-1 statement, paragraph by paragraph, and to set forth any material facts that would require denial of summary judgment, specifically referring to the record for support of each denial of fact. Local Bankr.R. 7056-2. The opposing party is required to respond "to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement" and to make "specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon[.]" Local Bankr.R. 7056-2A(2)(a). Most importantly, "[a]ll material facts set forth in the [7056-1] statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing party." Local ...
To continue reading
Request your trial