RS E Orange LLC v. Proudliving Cos., LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 31451(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedApril 19, 2024
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 31451(U) (RS E Orange LLC v. Proudliving Cos., LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
RS E Orange LLC v. Proudliving Cos., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 31451(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

RS E Orange LLC v Proudliving Cos., LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 31451(U) April 19, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 655013/2023 Judge: Margaret A. Chan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 655013/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 49M --------------------X RS E ORANGE LLC, INDEX NO. 655013/2023

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 11/03/2023 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. MS 001 PROUDLIVING COMPANIES, LLC, and ANDREW BROWN DECISION+ ORDER ON Defendants. MOTION --------------------X

HON. MARGARET A. CHAN:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 13, 14, 15 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT

In this action, plaintiff RS E Orange LLC afkla Red Starr ("Red Starr" or plaintiffj moves for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, seeking to recover $3,999,272.00 plus late fees, costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees allegedly owed by non·party PLA Six Portfolio JV LLC ("the Company") under the Company's operating agreement and personally guaranteed by defendants Proudliving Companies LLC ("PL") and Andrew Brown (together with PL "defendants") pursuant to a guaranty agreement. The motion is unopposed. However, for the reasons below, plaintiffs motion is denied.

BACKGROUND On March 19, 2021, plaintiff Red Starr invested $6 million with the Company (NYSCEF # 10, Plaintiffs Memo of Law, at 1). Pursuant to the Company's Operating Agreement ("Agreement"), the Company was to make monthly payments to plaintiff in certain amounts (id at 2; see NYSCEF # 5, Company Operating Agreement, at 12 [definition of "preferred return"]).

The Company's Operating Agreement and Guaranty Agreement

Under the Agreement, if the Company committed any "Material Default"- defined in the Agreement as, among other things, failure to pay or the commission of a "Bad Act"-then the Company would be required to "redeem all of [plaintiffs] Interest in the Company at the Full Redemption Price" (NYSCEF # 10 at 2, quoting NYSCEF # 5 at 28 [§ 6.4(a)]; see also NYSCEF # 5 at 8 [definition of "Material Default"]). The "Full Redemption Price" is the sum of.

655013/2023 RS E ORANGE LLC vs. PROUDLIVING COMPANIES, LLC ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 001

[* 1] 1 of 5 INDEX NO. 655013/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024

(A) all accrued but undistributed Priority Preferred Return; (B) all accrued but undistributed Enhanced Preferred Return; (C) all accrued but undistributed Accrued Preferred Return; (D) all accrued but undistributed Current Pay Return; (D) all accrued but undistributed Standby Fees; (E) the full amount of all unreturned [plaintiff] Capital Contributions, including, without limitation, all Additional RS Contributions funded by [plaintiff] in accordance with Section 5.l(a) and all additional Capital Contributions funded by [plaintiff] in accordance with Section 5. l(c) hereof, (F) all costs and expenses incurred by [plaintiff] in the enforcement of its right to redemption pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, if any; and (G) any other amounts [plaintiff] is entitled to under the terms of this Agreement.

(NSYCEF # 10 at 2-3, quoting NYSCEF # 5 at 27 [§ 6.3(e)(ii)]). Each capitalized term within that definition is further defined in the Agreement, usually as some sort of equation or obligation to pay (see NYSCEF # 5 at 1, 4, 6, 12, 14). Nowhere does the Agreement require the Company to pay a specific amount of money upon a Material Default, instead providing only the equations necessary to calculate the Full Redemption Price.

These obligations to pay are secured by the Guaranty Agreement ("the Guaranty"), which requires defendants PL and Brown to act as guarantors for the "Guaranteed Obligations" (NYSCEF # 10 at 3). The Guaranteed Obligations are defined as:

(a) payment and performance by the Company of the Investment to [plaintiff] as, and to the extent required, pursuant to the [Agreement], plus (b) the Preferred Return, the Enhanced Preferred Return, and the Priority Preferred Return, as applicable, due and payable with respect to the Investment, plus (c) all costs, including, without limitation, all attorney's fees and expenses incurred by Red Starr in connection with the collection and enforcement of the Guaranteed Obligations.

(NYSCEF # 6, Guaranty Agreement, ,r 2). Plaintiff alleges that these include "[a]ll of the foregoing payment obligations" mentioned by plaintiff about the Agreement (NYSCEF # 10 at 3).

The Guaranty further provides that if the Company fails to pay at any time, the defendants will immediately pay plaintiff "in full without notice or demand, and it shall not be necessary for [plaintiff] in order to enforce such payment by [defendants], first to institute suit or exhaust its remedies against the Company or others" (NYSCEF # 6 ,I 4). The Guaranty also contains language indicating that it is unconditional and that defendants waive any defenses, counterclaims, or prompt, diligent notice of default (id ,i,i 3, 9). Much like the Agreement itself, the Guaranty does not stipulate any specific amount of money defendants must pay. 655013/2023 RS E ORANGE LLC vs. PROUDLIVING COMPANIES, LLC ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 001

[* 2] 2 of 5 INDEX NO. 655013/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/15/2024

The Company Materially Defaults

Although the Company met all its obligations through 2022, beginning in 2023, plaintiff alleges a series of Material Defaults that activated the Guaranty (see NYSCEF # 10 at 2, 4). First, the Company stopped making monthly payments starting January 2023 (id at 4; NYSCEF # 3, Starr Aff,, 7). Throughout the next month, plaintiff allegedly discovered more unspecified "Bad Acts" and Material Defaults by the Company, which together caused the Company to owe the Full Redemption Price (NYSCEF # 10 at 4; NYSCEF # 3 1 17). On March 7, 2023, plaintiff sent both the Company and the defendants notice of the Material Defaults/Bad Acts and demanded that defendants pay $3,439,231 in satisfaction of the Guaranty (NYSCEF # 10 at 4•5; NYSCEF # 31118·19; NYSCEF # 7, March 7, 2023 Letter). Defendants did not make that payment (NYSCEF # 3119). The Company then failed to contribute its pro rata share of a Capital Call initiated by plaintiff, which amount to roughly $1,804,040.45 (NYSCEF # 10 at 5; NYSCEF # 3 , , 20·22; NYSCEF # 8, Capital Call Notice, at *1).

In response to plaintiffs March 7 demands, plaintiff and the Company agreed to enter discussions to try to resolve plaintiffs issues (see NYSCEF # 9, Discussion Agreement). Plaintiff and the Company even signed a "discussion agreement" on August 17, 2023, dictating the terms of the discussion itself (id). Pursuant to the discussion agreement, the Company admitted the following:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Weissman v. Sinorm Deli, Inc.
669 N.E.2d 242 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Bank of America v. Solow
59 A.D.3d 304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Green
95 A.D.2d 737 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Maglich v. Saxe, Bacon & Bolan, P. C.
97 A.D.2d 19 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
HSBC Bank USA v. IPO, LLC
290 A.D.2d 246 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Kerin v. Kaufman
296 A.D.2d 336 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 31451(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rs-e-orange-llc-v-proudliving-cos-llc-nysupctnewyork-2024.