Mckinley Associates, LLC v. Mckesson Hboc, Inc., No. 99-CV-398A.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
Writing for the CourtArcara
Citation110 F.Supp.2d 169
Decision Date26 June 2000
Docket NumberNo. 99-CV-398A.
PartiesMcKINLEY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. McKESSON HBOC, INC., Defendant.
110 F.Supp.2d 169
McKINLEY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
McKESSON HBOC, INC., Defendant.
No. 99-CV-398A.
United States District Court, W.D. New York.
June 26, 2000.

Page 170

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 171

Saperston & Day, P.C., Thomas F. Knab, of counsel, Buffalo, NY, for Plaintiff.

Nixon, Peabody, LLP, Vivian M. Quinn, of counsel, Buffalo, NY, for Defendant.

ORDER

ARCARA, District Judge.


This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on July 22, 1999. On June 16, 1999, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment and on September 3, 1999, plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On May 30, 2000, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendant's motion to dismiss and alternatively, for summary judgment should be granted; and plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment should be denied.

Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 19, 2000 and oral argument on the objections was held on August 21, 2000.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions and hearing argument from the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Foschio's thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. The Court also grants defendant's motion for attorneys' fees. The case is hereby referred back to Magistrate Judge Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(D) and 72(b), for a report and recommendation on the proper amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 172

REPORT and RECOMMENDATION

FOSCHIO, United States Magistrate Judge.

JURISDICTION

This case was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Richard J. Arcara on July 22, 1999, for report and recommendation on all dispositive motions. The matter is presently before the court on Defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment filed June 16, 1999 (Docket Item No. 2), and on Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment filed September 3, 1999 (Docket Item No. 10).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, McKinley Associates, LLC, commenced this action on May 6, 1999, in New York Supreme Court, Erie County, alleging two New York common law causes of action including for money had and received and for conversion. On June 11, 1999, Defendant, McKesson HBOC, Inc., formerly known as McKesson Corporation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), removed the action to this court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

On June 16, 1999, McKesson filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. (Docket Item No. 2). Defendant's motion was supported by an Affidavit of James G. Law ("Law Affidavit"), a Memorandum of Law (Docket Item No. 3) ("Defendant's Memorandum"), and a Statement of Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56 (Docket Item No. 4) ("Defendant's Fact Statement").

Plaintiff, on September 3, 1999, filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket Item No. 10). In support of the cross-motion, Plaintiff filed a Counter-Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Local Rule 56 (Docket Item No. 11) ("Plaintiff's Fact Statement"), the Affidavit of James L. Soos (Docket Item No. 12) ("Soos Affidavit"), the Affirmation of Thomas F. Knab, Esq. (Docket Item No. 13) ("Knab Affirmation"), and a Memorandum of Law (Docket Item No. 14) ("Plaintiff's Memorandum").

On October 1, 1999, in response to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and in further support of Defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, Defendant filed a Memorandum of Law (Docket Item No. 16) ("Defendant's Response/ Reply Memorandum"), the Reply Affidavit of James G. Law (Docket Item No. 17) ("Law Reply Affidavit"), and the Affidavit of Thomas E. Reidy (Docket Item No. 18) ("Reidy Affidavit").

Defendant filed, also on October 1, 1999, a Reply to Plaintiff's Counter-Statement of Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56 (Docket Item No. 19) ("Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Fact Statement"). On October 12, 1999, Defendant filed a Reply Memorandum (Docket Item No. 20) ("Defendant's Reply Memorandum"). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary.

For the following reasons, Defendant's motion (Docket Item No. 2) to dismiss should be GRANTED and, alternatively, for summary judgment should be GRANTED; Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment (Docket Item No. 10) should be DENIED. However, should the District Judge deny Defendant's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff should not be entered as Defendant must be permitted an opportunity to serve, within 10 days of the District Judge's decision, an answer asserting counterclaims, as provided for under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(4)(A).

FACTS1

Plaintiff, McKinley Associates, LLC ("McKinley") is an affiliate of Pyramid Management Group, Inc. ("Pyramid"), the management company for several shopping

Page 173

centers in the Northeast United States, including the Walden Galleria Mall ("the Walden Galleria"), located in Cheektowaga, New York. McKinley is also the owner of commercial property located at 100 McKesson Parkway, Cheektowaga, New York ("the leased premises"), which is adjacent to the northern edge of the property on which the Walden Galleria is located. A 90,000-square foot warehouse facility is located on the leased premises ("the warehouse"). Defendant, McKesson HBOC, Inc., formerly known as McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"), is engaged in the business of the wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter products sold in drug stores.

Pursuant to a 25-year lease executed on December 2, 1968 ("the Lease"), McKesson's predecessor-in-interest, Foremost-McKesson, Inc., leased the premises from McKinley's predecessor-in-interest, Yattendon Corp.2 The Lease required McKesson to make monthly rent payments ("Base Rent") and to pay the real property taxes on the leased premises. McKesson then commenced using the warehouse as a wholesale distribution center for a wide variety of its products.

Paragraph 5 of the lease provides that, as the lessee, McKesson was entitled to use of the leased premises, including the warehouse, for an interim term commencing on December 17, 1968 and ending on December 31, 1968, as well as for the primary term commencing on January 1, 1969 and ending on December 31, 1993. Upon the expiration of the primary term, McKesson had the option of extending the lease for six consecutive 5-year terms, with a potential final expiration date of December 31, 2023. The lease also provides McKesson with the right to assign and sublet the leased premises. Pursuant to a Lease Modification Agreement ("the Modification Agreement") executed on September 27, 1988, a portion of the leased premises was released from the lease and replaced with a new parcel of land, but the remaining Lease terms were undisturbed.3

Prior to the expiration of the primary term of the Lease on December 31, 1993, McKesson exercised the first of its six consecutive 5-year extension options, thereby extending the Lease to December 31, 1998. In early 1998, James G. Law, then McKesson's Vice President for Corporate Real Estate, was contacted by James L. Soos, Walden Galleria's General Manager and a representative of both Pyramid and McKinley. Soos informed Law that McKinley had recently acquired a fee interest in the leased premises, and desired to buy out the Lease and demolish the warehouse as Pyramid then intended to expand the Walden Galleria. Law informed Soos that McKesson had intended to exercise its remaining options to extend the Lease for the foreseeable future as the Lease's terms were very favorable to McKesson. For example, in 1998, McKesson's annual rent payments were $18,524 and were expected to decrease to $14,820 in 1999. However, Law informed Soos that McKesson would consider McKinley's offer to buy out McKesson's interest in the Lease. Soos later presented Law with McKinley's offer of $2 million which McKesson rejected. Law advised Soos that McKesson was unwilling to terminate the Lease for less than $7 million. The parties eventually agreed that McKesson would sell to McKinney its interest in the Lease for $5 million.

Accordingly, on June 22, 1998 ("the Effective Date"), McKinley and McKesson executed the Lease Termination Agreement ("the Lease Termination Agreement" or "the Agreement"), requiring McKinley to pay McKesson $5 million as consideration for McKesson's termination of the

Page 174

Lease, including the five remaining 5-year extension options, by July 22, 1999 ("the Vacation Date").4 Lease Termination Agreement, ¶ 3.a. Specifically, the $5 million lease termination fee was to be paid in three installments. Lease Termination Agreement, ¶ 3.c. and d. The first two payments, each for $1,250,000, totaled $2.5 million, denominated as the Termination Fee Deposit (the "Termination Fee Deposit" or "the Deposit"). Id., ¶ 3.c. Those installments were to be made within 60 days and 120 days, respectively, of the effective date of the Agreement. Id. The remaining $2.5 million, described as the Termination Fee Balance ("the Termination Fee Balance" or "the Balance"), was to be paid on the later of the date McKesson vacated the leased premises, or within five business days after the date McKesson notified McKinley that it would vacate such premises. Id., ¶ 3.e.

As McKinley was anxious to proceed with its plan to expand the Walden Galleria, the Lease Termination Agreement provided that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • N. Shipping Funds I, L.L.C. v. Icon Capital Corp., No. 12 Civ. 3584(JCF).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • February 24, 2014
    ...require the defendant to give up some of that money. (Northern Memo. at 10 (citing McKinley Associates, LLC v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 169, 190 (W.D.N.Y.2000))). However, even when the claims are “based on the same factual allegations” they are not necessarily duplicative. Bangko......
  • Wechsler v. Hunt Health Systems, Ltd., No. 94 Civ. 8294(PKL).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 11, 2004
    ...the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation." Id.; see McKinley Associates, LLC v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 169, 178 (W.D.N.Y.2000) ("[C]ourts uphold contractual provisions fixing damages for breach when the terms constitute a reasonable mechanism for......
  • Global Crossing Bandwith, Inc. v. Ols, Inc., No. 05-CV-6423L.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • July 8, 2008
    ...Inc. v. Koval-Olsen, 11 A.D.3d 263, 266, 782 N.Y.S.2d 708 (1st Dep't 2004)). See also McKinley Associates, LLC v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 169, 178 (W.D.N.Y.2000) ("In determining whether a contractual provision provides for enforceable liquidated damages or for an unenforceable p......
  • Loyal Bank Ltd. v. Mastercard Int'l, 20-CV-2208 (KMK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 13, 2021
    ...are disproportionate to the cost to Mastercard of a licensee ceasing to be a member. Cf. McKinley Assocs. LLC v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 169, 185 (W.D.N.Y. 2000) (“Other courts, relying on Hackenheimer, have upheld similar liquidated damages provisions where a material term of th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • N. Shipping Funds I, L.L.C. v. Icon Capital Corp., No. 12 Civ. 3584(JCF).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • February 24, 2014
    ...require the defendant to give up some of that money. (Northern Memo. at 10 (citing McKinley Associates, LLC v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 169, 190 (W.D.N.Y.2000))). However, even when the claims are “based on the same factual allegations” they are not necessarily duplicative. Bangko......
  • Wechsler v. Hunt Health Systems, Ltd., No. 94 Civ. 8294(PKL).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 11, 2004
    ...the amount of actual loss is incapable or difficult of precise estimation." Id.; see McKinley Associates, LLC v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 169, 178 (W.D.N.Y.2000) ("[C]ourts uphold contractual provisions fixing damages for breach when the terms constitute a reasonable mechanism for......
  • Global Crossing Bandwith, Inc. v. Ols, Inc., No. 05-CV-6423L.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • July 8, 2008
    ...Inc. v. Koval-Olsen, 11 A.D.3d 263, 266, 782 N.Y.S.2d 708 (1st Dep't 2004)). See also McKinley Associates, LLC v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 169, 178 (W.D.N.Y.2000) ("In determining whether a contractual provision provides for enforceable liquidated damages or for an unenforceable p......
  • Loyal Bank Ltd. v. Mastercard Int'l, 20-CV-2208 (KMK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 13, 2021
    ...are disproportionate to the cost to Mastercard of a licensee ceasing to be a member. Cf. McKinley Assocs. LLC v. McKesson HBOC, Inc., 110 F.Supp.2d 169, 185 (W.D.N.Y. 2000) (“Other courts, relying on Hackenheimer, have upheld similar liquidated damages provisions where a material term of th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT