Buy This Entire Record For
Bankk v. Delta Ctr., Inc.
United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
February 23, 2017
CAPAHA BANK, Plaintiff,
DELTA CTR., INC., Consolidated Plaintiff,
DELTA CTR., INC., DELTA CTR. RESIDENTIAL, INC., FIRST NAT'L BANK OF CAIRO, ILL., U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, JANEICE BAILEY, MIKAYLA BAILEY, MELANIE T. BALLARD, JULIE A. BURKITT, JESSICA BUTCHER, DAWANDA D. CANNON, SHANEKA CANNON, KENITRA L. CHILDRESS, DAWN M. CHLADA, MELOVEE CLARK, LEA A CLENDENIN, MARGARET M. DALE, RAYMOND E. DAVAULT, BARBARA R. DAVIS, REBECCA J. EFTINK, CHELIA ELLIS, KANESHA EURALES, MARIAN EVERAGE, JAMIE L. FEAR, MORGAN N. FRAYSER, MARVINA HALTON, WINTER HARRINGTON, BERNARD HARRIS, FRANZELLE E. HOWARD, CASEY E. HUFF, TAMELA HUGHES, CHARLETTE JACKSON, CARRIE JAMES, KATRINA L. JONES, DA'NAI LAMPKINS, ROBIN LUTKER, JULIE K. MASON, ORLANDO T. MATTHEWS, KATHLEEN M. MAYS, QUITMAN McBRIDE, SANDRA G. MCGREGOR, GEORGE R. MITCHELL, REGINDA MOORE, KIMYATTA MOORE, EDGAR NELSON, SHIRLEY RILEY, CHRISTY ROBERTSON, ARLENE SCHOEN, PATRICIA A. SHOULDERS, WILLIAM SKILES, JONI L. SMITH, LORIE ST. ARBOR, CYNTHIA SWOPE, LISA TOLBERT, CHRISTY TOON, PEARLENE TOOTS, LAWRENCE VALENTINE, JACOB VANWEY, ARKITA M. VEAL-WATTS, LYNN R. WEBSTER, MELODY WEDDING, SHARON K. WILKINS, BERNARD WILLIAMS, GLENN WILLIFORD, RICHARD WILLIS, U.S. DEPT. OF TREASURY, ILLINOIS DEPT. OF REVENUE, ILL. DEPT. OF LABOR, KENT MACK, UNKNOWN CLAIMANTS (consolidated from case 16-cv-0010), CAPAHA BANK (consolidated from case 16-cv-0010), Defendants.
Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge.
matter came before the Court on Tuesday, February 21, 2017
for a status conference regarding the pending dispositive
motions, and multiple notices of settlement between various
parties. The underlying dispute was a consolidation of two
cases-16-cv-0010 and 16-cv-0549-that both dealt with the
rights of the parties to funds the defunct Delta Center and
Delta Center Residential had on deposit at First National
Bank of Cairo and Capaha Bank. In essence, the parties sought
to establish their rights of priority in the funds via their
status as secured creditors. A more thorough recitation of
the facts and procedural history of the case was read into
the record orally at the status conference. Ultimately, the
Court determined that the interwoven settlements reached by
the parties (reflected in Docs. 53 and 54) were appropriate.
The matter is now before the Court on the motions for summary
judgment by the United States Department of Agriculture
(“USDA”) and Capaha Bank that remain pending
(Docs. 29 and 30).
Judgment is proper only “if the admissible evidence
considered as a whole shows there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Dynegy Mktg. & Trade v. Multi
Corp., 648 F.3d 506, 517 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). See
also Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.,
422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). The party seeking summary
judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating-based on
the pleadings, affidavits, and/or information obtained via
discovery-the lack of any genuine issue of material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
The burden then shifts to the non-movant to establish that
material disputes of fact remain. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2)). But when a party fails to respond to
a motion for summary judgment, its failure “constitutes
an admission  that there are no disputed issues of genuine
fact warranting a trial.” Flynn v. Sandahl, 58
F.3d 283, 288 (7th Cir. 1995).
both of the motions for summary judgment claim a priority
secured interest in the assets of Delta Center and/or Delta
Center Residential, Inc. As to claims made between the USDA,
Capaha, First National Bank of Cairo, the U.S. Department of
Treasury, the Delta Center, and the Delta Center
Residential-the parties resolved their priority claims
amongst themselves. Both motions for summary judgment claimed
a priority stake in the funds over any unsecured party-i.e.
the individual named defendants. None of the individual named
defendants appeared or otherwise responded to the motions for
summary judgment or the notices of settlement. The lack of
response can be construed as an admission to the allegations
that the movant's had priority interests in the funds.
See Flynn, 58 F.3d at 288. See also SDIL-LR
more, the Court gave the individual defendants an opportunity
to appear and be heard at the status conference, and the
Court attempted to ensure the parties were made aware of this
opportunity by directing the USDA to serve the defendants
with known addresses. No individual appeared at the time and
date set for the hearing. In the Order setting the status
conference, the Court clearly indicated that “[a]ny
party not present will have their claims dismissed with
prejudice for failure to prosecute” (Dkt. txt. 48).
Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the
motions for summary judgment and to dismiss with prejudice
the individual defendants who did not appear or otherwise
respond in this case.
the Court finds that, except as set out in the settlement
between the USDA and Capaha Bank, the secured claim of the
USDA is superior to any other claim against Delta Center,
Inc. and Delta Center Residential, Inc. with respect to the
res held by First National Bank of Cairo and Capaha
Bank. The resolution of claims regarding this particular
res have no bearing on any other potential claims to
other res not identified herein.
motions for summary judgment (Docs. 29 and 30) are hereby
GRANTED in accord with the agreement set forth in the
Court's Orders approving settlement (Docs. 53 and 54).
All parties not explicitly contemplated by these settlements
are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
claims remain in light of the above disposition, so the Clerk
of the ...