Michael Eugene Cassone

The plaintiffs, an investment corporation and its principals, suffered losses from a failed real estate development and sought to recover their unsecured investment in priority to secured creditors.

The secured creditors (defendants) brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motions, finding complex factual issues, multiple credibility assessments, and a risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The court concluded that the current record was not appropriate for summary judgment and that a full trial was required to resolve the intertwined issues, including allegations of knowing receipt of trust property and conspiracy.

The plaintiff corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that an associate dentist breached an Associate Agreement and a permanent injunction.

The dispute arose from the termination of the associate's arrangement with the plaintiff and another principal dentist at a dental clinic, and the associate's subsequent agreement to purchase the other principal dentist's practice.

The responding parties argued that the Associate Agreement was subject to an overarching Practice Agreement and that the plaintiff's termination was not in good faith.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the common law duty of honest performance in contracts and the advisability of partial summary judgment in the context of the litigation as a whole.

In insolvency proceedings involving a corporate plaintiff in receivership, the defendant moved to dismiss the related civil action for delay, relying primarily on Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and alleging prejudice arising from the receiver’s failure to obtain an order to continue following the appointment of a receiver.

After issuing an earlier endorsement approving the receiver’s conduct and the assignment of the claim, the court clarified that the defendant had intended to maintain its Rule 11 motion despite abandoning its Rule 24 delay motion.

The court held that the receiver had acted reasonably during the stay period and that the time taken to assess and assign the claim did not constitute unacceptable delay.

Allegations of prejudice, including the death of a witness and departure of employees, were unsupported by evidence and did not establish real prejudice.

The motion to dismiss was therefore formally dismissed.