Motion,Ex Parte: APF CRE I LLC Vs TEHRAH HOSPITALITY LLC ET AL VS.TEHRAH HOSPITALITY LLC ET AL

On October 29, 2020 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between and for OTHER CIVIL in the District Court of Franklin County.

Preview
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0GO10 - Y48

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION

APF-CRE I, LLC,
ETAL. CASE NO. 20CV-7082
Plaintiffs,
JUDGE KIM BROWN
Vv.

TEHRAH
HOSPITALITY, LLC,
ETAL.,
Defendants.

ENTRY GRANTING IN PART
PLAINITFFS’ MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO AMEND; AND
DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANTS’ CIV.R. 56(F) MOTION

This case centers on allegations of failure to repay
loans used to purchase and improve a hotel in Lucas
County, Ohio. Plaintiffs, APF-CRE I, LLC and APF-CPX I,
LLC (“Lenders”) are the subsequent assignees of two loan
agreements with Defendant, Tehrah Hospitality, LLC
(“Borrower”). In addition to the two loan agreements,
Defendants, Abhijit Vasani, and Bhavna_ Vasani
(“Guarantors”) signed agreements guaranteeing payment
of Borrower’s debt. When it seemed the loans were not
going to be timely repaid, the Guarantors entered
forbearance agreements in addition to their guarantees to
prevent a breach. Despite that effort, the allegations are the
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G0O10 - Y49

loans have not been satisfied and Lenders are seeking to
enforce their rights against the Guarantors.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lenders initiated this action by filing their complaint
on October 29, 2020. Their complaint alleges Borrower
breached the mortgage agreement and breached the
equipment loan agreement. Compl., Counts 1 and 2.
Further, it alleges Guarantors breached the mortgage
guaranty agreement and equipment loan guaranty
agreement. Id., Counts 3 and 4. It also alleges Borrower
and the Guarantors are jointly and severally liable for
breaching the mortgage forbearance agreement and
breaching the equipment loan forbearance agreement. Id.,
Counts 5 and 6. Borrower and Guarantors filed a joint
answer on December 20, 2020.

Nine months after the answer was filed, Lenders filed
a motion for partial summary judgment on August 12,
2021. Lenders seek summary judgment against the
Guarantors for the counts related to the guarantee
agreements and the forbearance agreements. After that,
the procedural posture became unusual.

The first unusual thing was counsel for Guarantors
and Borrower withdrew and was replaced with new counsel
while Lenders’ motion for partial summary judgment was
pending. Motion filed Sept. 23, 2021 and Notice filed Sept.
24, 2021. Then, through its new counsel, Guarantors
moved under Civ.R. 56(F) for additional time to respond to
Lenders’ motion for partial summary judgment. Motion for
more time filed Sept. 24, 2021. Guarantors also requested
leave to amend their answer to assert additional
affirmative defenses and assert a crossclaim against
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G010 - Y50

Borrower. Motion for leave filed Sept. 24, 2021. The
unusual procedure continued; before completing briefing
on those motions, the parties filed nine unopposed
continuances which resulted in an armistice ranging from
late September 2021 to early April 2022.

Lenders broke the armistice on April 8, 2022. First,
they filed a combined opposition to Guarantors’ motion for
more time and motion for leave to amend. Response in
opp. filed April 8, 2022. Second, they amended their
motion for partial summary judgment. Amendment filed
April 8, 2022. Guarantors filed a combined reply
supporting their motion for more time and motion for
leave to amend. Reply filed April 18, 2022. Guarantors
then filed their opposition to the motion for partial
summary judgment. Memo in Opp. filed May 12, 2022.
Lenders filed their reply memorandum on June 10, 2022.
Reply filed June 10, 2022. The motions are now ripe for the
Court’s consideration.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Tenth District Court of Appeals has addressed
the type of evidence that may be considered when deciding
a motion for summary judgment.

Civ.R. 56(C) sets forth an exhaustive list of
evidence that a court may consider when ruling
on a motion for summary judgment. Under
Civ.R. 56(C), a court may consider 'pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories,
written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of
evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if
any, timely filed in the action[.]' Civ.R.
56(C) expressly cautions that 'no evidence or
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0GO10 - Y51

stipulation may be considered except as stated
in this rule.' [A] letter does not fall within the
categories of evidence listed in Civ.R. 56(C).

The proper procedure for introducing
evidentiary matter of a type not listed
in Civ.R. 56(C) is to incorporate the material
by reference into a properly framed
affidavit. Martin v. Central Ohio Transit
Auth., 70 Ohio App.3d 83, 89, 590 N.E.2d 411
(1990) citing Biskupick v. Westaby Manor
Nursing Home, 33 Ohio App.3d 220, 515
N.E.2d 632 (8th Dist.1986).

Six v. Gahanna Trailer Servs., 10th Dist. Franklin No.
16AP-91, 2017-Ohio-7131, { 21 quoting Cunningham v.
Children’s Hosp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. o5AP-69, 2005-
Ohio-4284, { 14-15. Consistent with those decisions, the
Court finds the following facts to be material:

1 Lenders, APF-CRE I, LLC and APF-CPX I, LLC are
Delaware limited liability companies with their
principal places of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
Compl., (1.

Borrower, Tehrah Hospitality, LLC is an Ohio limited
liability company and its principal place of business
is in Toledo, Ohio. Answer, { 2.

Guarantors, Abhijit Vasani and Bhavana Vasani are
natural persons residing in Franklin County, Ohio.
Compl., 13.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G0O10 - Y52

The mortgage agreement.

Borrower, on June 14, 2018, executed and delivered
to Access Point a promissory note (the “Mortgage
Note”) for a $5,250,000.00 loan. Compl., {6 and
Answer, 16. Borrower used the loan to acquire a
hotel in Toledo, Ohio. Compl., 8 and Answer, {| 8.
The Mortgage Note was secured with a mortgage and
security agreement (the “Mortgage”). Compl., 4.9
and Answer, 9. The Mortgage was recorded on
June 19, 2018. Id.

Also, on June 14, 2018, Borrower executed and
delivered to Access Point an Assignment of Leases
and Rents which was recorded on June 19, 2018.
Compl., 111 and Answer, 4/11. To further induce
Access Point, Guarantors pledged their ownership
interest of Borrower. Compl., 114-15, Ex. 4 and
Answer, 14-15.

Additionally, on June 14, 2018, Guarantors executed
and delivered to Access Point a guaranty agreement
(“Mortgage Guaranty”) for the Mortgage.
Compl., {16 and Answer, { 16.

Access Point assigned all documents mentioned in
this section to Lender, APF-CRE. Motion partial for
summary judgment filed Aug. 12, 2021, Ex. 1,
Wimmer Affidavit, 1 15.

The equipment-loan agreement.

On June 14, 2018, Borrower executed and delivered
to Access Point an agreement for securing a
$750,000.00 loan for equipment to be used in
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G010 - Y53

renovating the hotel property. (“Equipment Loan
Agreement”). Compl., | 20-22 and Answer, {| 20-22.
This loan was secured with a promissory note.
Compl., {23 and Answer, 7 23.

That same day, Guarantors executed and delivered to
Access Point an agreement (“Equipment Loan
Guaranty”) guaranteeing Borrower’s payments to
Access Point. Compl., / 26 and Answer, 4 26.

10. Access Point assigned the documents mentioned in
this section to Lender, APF-CPX. Compl., 29.

The forbearance agreements.

11 Borrower did not satisfy its obligation under the
Mortgage when it matured on June 1, 2020. Motion
for partial summary judgment filed Aug. 12, 2021,
Ex. 1, Wimmer Affidavit, 24. Borrower also
defaulted on the Equipment Loan Agreement. Id.
Lenders demanded payment, but the demand was
not satisfied. Id., 1 25-27.

12 On August 12, 2020, Guarantors entered into
separate forbearance agreements with Lenders
relating to the mortgage documents (“Mortgage
Forbearance Agreement”) and equipment loan
documents (“Equipment Loan Forbearance
Agreement”). Id., { 28-30. Guarantors failed to make
payments on those forbearance agreements and
Lenders’ demand for payments was not satisfied. Id.,
133-35.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0GO10 - Y54

Lenders’ post-filing actions.

13 After Lenders filed this action, they foreclosed on the
Guarantors’ membership interests in Borrower.
Amended motion for partial summary judgment
filed April 8, 2020, Ex. 1, Wimmer Affidavit, 18. A
company affiliated with Lenders purchased the
membership interests at auction. Id.

14 Borrower, now under the ownership of a company
affiliated with Lenders, transferred the hotel
property to the affiliated company. Id. The hotel was
sold at an auction to a third-party buyer for
$5,275,000.00. Id., J 10.

LAW AND ANLYSIS

Before the Court are three related motions: Lenders’
motion for partial summary judgment, Guarantors’ motion
for leave to amend its answer, and Guarantors’ motion for
additional time under Civ.R. 56(F). The Court will begin
with the oldest filing, the motion for partial summary
judgment.

1 Lenders’ motion for partial summary
judgment.

Lenders seek summary judgment against Guarantors
on their claims Guarantors breached the Mortgage
Guaranty, breached the Equipment Loan Guaranty,
breached the Mortgage Forbearance Agreement, and
breached the Equipment Loan Forbearance Agreement.
Motion for partial summary judgment filed Aug. 12, 2021,
p. 3.
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G0O10 - Y55

1.1 Summary judgment standard.

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the
moving party must inform the court of the basis for the
motion and identify those portions of the record that
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Ohio Supreme Court precedent explains:

the movant must be able to point to evidentiary
materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) that
a court is to consider in rendering summary
judgment .... These evidentiary materials must
show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact, and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . If
the moving party fails to satisfy its initial
burden, the motion for summary judgment
must be denied.

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St. 3d 280, 292-93, 662
N.E.2d 264 (1996). Accordingly, summary judgment is
proper only when the parties moving for summary
judgment demonstrate (1) no genuine issue of material fact
exists, (2) the moving parties are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds viewing the
evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party
could reach but one conclusion, and that conclusion is
adverse to the nonmoving party. Brehm v. Macintosh Co.,
1oth Dist. Franklin County No. 19AP-19, 2009-Ohio-5322,
410, citing Civ.R. 56 and State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp.
Rels. Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 677 N.E.2d 343 (1997).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the
initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for
the motion and identifying those portions of the record
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0GO10 - Y56

demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact by pointing to specific evidence of the type listed in
Civ.R. 56(C). Id., 4 11 citing Dresher, supra. If the moving
party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the court must deny
the motion for summary judgment; however, if the moving
party satisfies its initial burden, summary judgment is
appropriate unless the nonmoving party responds, by
affidavit or as otherwise provided under Civ.R. 56, with
specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue exists for
trial. Id. “A motion for summary judgment forces the
nonmoving party to produce evidence on any issue for
which that party bears the burden of production at trial.”
Wing v. Anchor Media, 59 Ohio St. 3d 108, 570 N.E.2d
1095 (1991). “It should be noted that placing the above-
mentioned requirements on the moving party does not
mean the nonmoving party bears no burden. Requiring
that the moving party provide specific reasons and
evidence gives rise to a reciprocal burden of specificity for
the nonmoving party.” Harless VU Willis Day
Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St. 2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978).

1.2 Analysis of agreements.

The Court will first analyze the global elements of the
agreements. Then the Court will address the arguments for
the guarantee agreements. Then the Court will address the
forbearance agreements.

1.2.1 Breach of contract analysis.

Lenders’ claims are breach of contract claims. The
essential elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) a
contract; (2) performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach by the
defendant; and (4) the breach results in damages to
plaintiff. Columbus Green Bldg. Forum v. State, 980
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G0O10 - Y57

N.E.2d 1, 2012-Ohio-4244, { 29 (10th Dist.). It is axiomatic
that a plaintiff must show the defendant was a party to the
contract before proceeding on a breach of contract theory.
Jackson v. Sunnyside Toyota, Inc., 175 Ohio App.3d 370,
2008-Ohio-687, 41 19 (8th Dist.). Under applicable Georgia
law', the holder of a guaranty establishes a right to
judgment by showing the existence of a guaranty and the
amount owed on the underlying debt. E.g., Caves v.
Columbus Bank & Trust Co., 589 S.E.2d 670, 673 (Ga.App.
2003), Vickers v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 280 S.E.2d 842
(Ga.App. 1981).

Here, the disputes are the enforceability of the
agreements and what damages, if any, Lenders are entitled
to. In their pleadings, Guarantors admitted the agreements
were executed, admitted the loans were made, admitted
the guarantees were made, and admitted the underlying
loans were not repaid. Answer, 1 6,8,9,16,20-27.
Accordingly, the Court will turn to the Guarantors’
enforceability arguments.

1.3 The agreements are enforceable.

Guarantors raise the following arguments in
opposition to summary judgment: (1) the guarantees are
usurious, (2) an act of god made performance impossible,
(3) there was no meeting of the minds on an integral part
of the forbearance agreements, (4) the auction of the hotel
property created an issue of material fact, (5) Lenders
impaired the collateral, and (6) Lenders materially altered
the agreements. The first three arguments will be

1 Motion for partial summary judgment filed Aug. 12, 2021, Ex. 1, Wimmer Affidavit, Ex. C at 114(c),
Applicable Law, and Ex. F at § 14(c), Applicable Law.

10
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G0O10 - Y58

addressed individually, and the other three will be
addressed together.

1.3.1 The agreements are not usurious under
Georgia law.

Guarantors argue the guarantees are usurious for
they “permit the acceleration and collection of unearned
interest.” Memo in opp. filed May 12, 2022, p. 13-16. In
support, they cite the definition of Debt contained in the
guarantees. “Debt” is defined as,

the principal sum evidenced by the Note and
secured by the Security Instrument, or so much
thereof as may be outstanding from time to
time, together with interest thereon at the rates
of interest specified in the Note, late fees,
prepayment consideration, and all other sums
which may or shall become due and payable
pursuant to the provisions of the Loan
Documents.

Motion for partial summary judgment filed Aug. 12, 2021,
Ex. 1, Wimmer Affidavit, Ex. C at § 2(a).2 Turing to the
Note, it specifies Lenders can demand “the entire principal
balance, together with all interest accrued and unpaid
thereon.” (Emphasis added.) Id., Ex. A at 1 II(D). The use
of accrued interest denotes the exclusion of unearned
interest from the definition of Debt. Since, the definition
does not include unearned interest, Guarantors’ argument
is unpersuasive.

2 The same definition is used in the Equipment Loan Guarantee. Motion for partial summary judgment
filed Aug. 12, 2021, Ex. 1, Wimmer Affidavit, Ex. F at § 2(a).

WW
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G0O10 - Y59

1.3.2
An act of god did not make performance
of the guaranty impossible.

Guarantors argue the COVID-19 pandemic was an
act of god which excused performance. Memo in opp. filed
May 12, 2022, p. 16-17. Specifically, they cite the devasting
effect the pandemic had on the hotel industry. Georgia law
excuses nonperformance as a result of an act of god.
Ga.CodeAnn. 8 13-4-21. However, Guarantors are
conflating their performance with the Borrower's
performance. Guarantors’ contractual obligation was to
promptly pay the Debt when demanded. Motion for partial
summary judgment filed Aug. 12, 2021, Ex. 1, Wimmer
Affidavit, Ex. C at §/1(a).3 Their performance was not
dependent on Borrower’s performance. “Lender may, at its
option, proceed _ directly...against Guarantor to
collect...without proceeding against Borrower.” Id. So,
even if the pandemic was considered an act of god under
Georgia law, it would not affect the Guarantors’
obligations.

1.3.3 Guarantors admitted they executed the
forbearance agreements.

Guarantors argue there was no meeting of the minds
for the forbearance agreements. Memo in opp. filed May
12, 2022, p. 17-18. Specifically, they argue there was no
agreement on the Cash Management Agreement “which
was an integral part of the Forbearance Agreements.” Id.,
p. 17. This argument contradicts Guarantors’ answer where
they admitted they entered into the forbearance
agreements and admitted the copies attached the

3 Same language is used in the Equipment Loan Guarantee. Motion for partial summary judgment filed
Aug. 12, 2021, Ex. 1, Wimmer Affidavit, Ex. F at § 1(a).

12
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G010 - Y60

complaint were true. Answer, 9736-38. As such,
Guarantors’ argument is unpersuasive.

1.3.4Arguments about the hotel property
auction concern damages, not liability.

Guarantors’ arguments about possible impropriety
regarding the auction of the hotel property and whether
Lenders’ takeover of Borrower diminished the collaterals’
value concern how much Guarantors owe in damages, not
whether they are liable for damages. As explained below in
Section 1.5, these arguments can be addressed at an
evidentiary hearing on damages without affecting the
question of whether the Guarantors are liable for breaching
the agreements.

1.4 Lenders cannot recover twice the same
damages for the same conduct.

Per the forbearance agreements’ terms, a breach of
the guarantee agreements is a breach of the corresponding
forbearance agreements. Both forbearance agreements
state the Guarantors’ obligations under the Loan
Documents were ratified. Motion for partial summary
judgment filed Aug. 12, 2021, Ex. 1, Wimmer Affidavit, Ex.
G at 72 and Ex. H at 72. The phrase “Loan Documents”
used in the forbearance agreements includes the guaranty
agreements. Id., Ex. G at { F and Ex. H at § E. The
forbearance agreements then make clear the obligations
under the Loan Documents “shall remain in full force and
effect” and the forbearance agreement “is not and shall not
be construed as a novation” of obligations under the Loan
Documents. Id., Ex. G at 2 and Ex. H at 7 2. Thus, a breach
of the guarantee agreements is a breach of the
corresponding forbearance agreements.

13
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G0O10 - Yél1

Lenders have failed to distinguish their alleged
damages for breaching the guarantees from their alleged
damages for breaching the forbearance agreements.
Motion for partial summary judgment filed Aug. 12, 2021,
p. 21-22. As shown above, the breaches are inextricably
intertwined. Since the relief sought for one breach is the
same relief sought for the same breaching event, the claims
for breaching of the forbearance agreements are MOOT
for a plaintiff cannot recover the same relief twice for the
same conduct. See, Thornton v. Cangialosi, S.D. Ohio
No. 2:09-CV-585, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51818, *13-14
(May 26, 2010). Thus, the remaining issue is what damages
Lenders may be entitled to for the breaches of the
guarantee agreements.

1.5 Lenders’ damages and other remedies
are yet undetermined.

Here,Lenders have presented two different
calculations of damages for the breach of Mortgage
Guaranty and the breach of the Equipment Loan Guaranty.
Compare, Motion for partial summary judgment filed
Aug. 12, 2021, p. 12 and Amended motion for partial
summary judgment filed April 8, 2022, p. 3-4. Lenders
argue the discrepancy is due to applying the proceeds of the
hotel-property auction to the underlying debt. Amended
motion for partial summary judgment filed April 8, 2022,
p. 3. Guarantors counter the discrepancy and the unknown
circumstances of the auction create questions of material
fact. Memo in opp. filed May 12, 2022, p. 22-23. These
arguments are germane to damages and do not affect
liability. Thus, under Civ.R. 56(C-D), the Court finds an
evidentiary hearing on the issue of damages for the breach
of the Mortgage Guaranty and the Equipment Loan
Guaranty is justified. That hearing will also determine the

14
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G0O10 - Y62

amount of reasonable attorney fees which are provided for
in the guarantees. Motion for partial summary judgment
filed Aug. 12, 2021, Ex. 1, Wimmer Affidavit, Ex. C at 1.9
and Ex. F at {.9. Further, the hearing will be set by a
separate order and will not occur within 60-days of this
Entry’s filing.

For these reasons, Lenders’ motion for partial
summary judgment is GRANTED as to liability.

2.1 Guarantors’ motion for leave to amend.

Guarantors seek to amend their complaint to add
additional affirmative defenses against Lenders’ claims
and to add a crossclaim against Borrower. Motoin for leave
filed Sept. 24, 2021. For the following reasons, the motion
is DENIED.

A motion for leave to amend is governed by Civ.R. 15.
A court has discretion to grant or deny a motion to amend.
“While the rule allows for liberal amendment, motions to
amend pleadings pursuant to Civ.R.15(A) should be
refused if there is a showing of bad faith, undue delay, or
undue prejudice to the opposing party.” City of Dublin v.
RiverPark Grp., LLC, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-607,
2019-Ohio-1790, { 20, quoting Turner v. Cent. Local
School Dist., 85 Ohio St.3d 95, 99, 706 N.E.2d 1261 (1999).
“Prejudice to an opposing party is the most critical factor
to be considered in determining whether to grant leave to
amend.” DeAscentis v. Margello, 10th Dist. Franklin
No. 08AP-522, 2008-Ohio-6821, {37 quoting Hoskinson
VU Lambert, 5th Dist. Licking No. 06CA037,
2006- Ohio- 6940, 7 32.

15
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G010 - Y63

It would be prejudicial to allow additional affirmative
defenses for they make no _ difference regarding
Guarantors’ liability. Guarantors unequivocally
guaranteed payment for the loans and the proposed
affirmative defenses do not alter their guarantees. Further,
the alleged crossclaim is inappropriate under Civ.R. 13(G).
The crossclaim relates to an alleged, potential debt. Motion
for leave to amend filed Sept. 24, 2021, Ex. A at 136-40.
The crossclaim is not ripe and does not meet the criteria of
Civ.R. 13(G) for the attorney has not actually made a
demand. Therefore, the motion for leave to amend is
DENIED.

3.1 Guarantors’ motion for additional time
is moot.

Guarantors moved for more time under Civ.R. 56(F).
They sought a 60-day continuance to investigate the
auction of the hotel property and that discovery is
“necessary to support their claims to reductions in the
judgment amount.” Motion for more time filed Sept. 24,
2022, p. 13. As stated previously, the amount of damages
will be determined at a later, evidentiary hearing and
Guarantors may conduct related discovery prior to that
hearing. As such, the motion is MOOT.

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, Lenders’ motion for
partial summary judgment is GRANTED as to liability
only. This matter will be referred to the Court’s magistrate
for a damages hearing to occur no sooner than sixty (60)
days after the filing of this entry.

16
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0GO10 - Y64

Further, Guarantors’ motion for leave to amend their
answer, filed September 24, 2021 is DENIED.

Finally, Guarantors’ motion for additional time
under Civ.R. 56(F) is MOOT. However, Guarantors are
permitted to conduct discovery necessary to prepare for the
damages hearing, including deposing witnesses like
Jennifer Wimmer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2022 Jul 22 1:34 PM-20CV007082
0G0O10 - Y65

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

Date: 07-22-2022

Case Title: APF CREILLC ET AL -VS- TEHRAH HOSPITALITY LLC ET AL

Case Number: 20CV007082

Type: ENTRY

It Is So Ordered.

Qy“SS,
manrangeeni

Case Info

Judge

KIM J BROWN Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 22, 2022

Case Filing Date

October 29, 2020

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: APF CRE I LLC Vs TEHRAH HOSPITALITY LLC ET AL VS.TEHRAH HOSPITALITY LLC ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties