ARTICLE
14 May 2015

MERV Properties, LLC v. Friedlander (In Re MERV Properties, LLC)

SK
Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC

Contributor

In boardrooms and courtrooms, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC provides strategic legal counsel to clients in the Midwestern United States, across the country and around the world. Our attorneys are recognized among the best in their fields by Martindale-Hubbell, Best Lawyers in America and Benchmark Litigation. We build client relationships for the long haul, because succeeding at business is a marathon, not a sprint.
The bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and dismisses the action against the individual defendant
United States Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring

Source: https://mattlindblom.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/merv-properties-llc-v-friedlander-in-re-merv-properties-llc/

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 4, 2015)

The bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and dismisses the action against the individual defendant. The plaintiff attempted to serve the complaint and summons on the defendant by mailing them to "the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession," pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b). The plaintiff then waited until well after the 120-day deadline to effect service and moved for default judgment. The court finds that service was not effective because the defendant did not regularly conduct business at the address at the time of the attempted service, and the plaintiff could not establish good cause for meeting the 120-day service deadline. Thus, the Court declined to extend the period for effecting service.

In a second opinion entered the same day, the Court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the other defendants. Claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims against the individual defendants were not supported by evidence and dismissed. Claims against the bank defendant were analyzed under Article 3 of Kentucky's UCC and also dismissed. Opinions below.

2015-05-04 – merv properties v friedlander1

2015-05-04 – merv properties v friedlander2

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More