United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
May 9, 2005.
RORY GAUNT and JULIE GAUNT, Plaintiffs,
STEVEN SCHADA, KAREN SCHADA, and SCOTT SCHADA, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
About the only thing the parties agree on is that the
defendants were going to sell a property, including beach rights,
in New Buffalo, Michigan, to the plaintiffs; that the sale was
temporarily sidetracked by a lawsuit there over beach rights; and
that the sale ultimately did not go forward. Each side has filed
a motion for summary judgment, and those motions will be fully
In the meantime, the seller defendants want to take the
depositions of Alan and Ann Marie Gull. Plaintiffs move to quash
the subpoenas. According to defendants, their relationship with
their neighbors, the Gulls, has been a rocky one. They earlier
sued the Gulls over access rights, and won. That case is on
appeal. The Gulls' attorney, on behalf of Patricia R. Lauber,
Charles R. Melendy and Colleen A. Melendy (Lauber/Melendy),
brought the breach access litigation shortly before the
Gaunt/Schada closing date. That case was tossed out, with
sanctions. According to defendants, the Gulls are good friends of
Lauber/Melendy, and, even though the Gulls were defendants in
that lawsuit, they supported the Lauber/Melendy position.
Defendants further assert that only they were served in the beach
access litigation which cannot be so because the order imposing sanctions shows
four defendant families were represented (the Schadas are not
among them), and the fees awards went to two of those families.
They attribute to those court orders other things that simply are
About the time of the scheduled closing here, plaintiffs sought
a reduction in the purchase price. Maybe, defendants assert,
there is some relationship between the Gaunts and the Gulls, with
the Gaunts being somehow involved in the Lauber/Melendy
litigation so as to disrupt the closing. But none of that appears
in any of the pleadings none of that is even remotely hinted at
in the Lauber/Melendy court orders, and none of it appears in the
cross-motions for summary judgment. The linkage is a wholly
unsubstantiated "maybe." The motion to quash is granted.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.