Simmons Bank v. Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Management, LLC; and Marion U. Threatt, Individually

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee
DecidedFebruary 9, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-02818
StatusUnknown

This text of Simmons Bank v. Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Management, LLC; and Marion U. Threatt, Individually (Simmons Bank v. Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Management, LLC; and Marion U. Threatt, Individually) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Simmons Bank v. Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Management, LLC; and Marion U. Threatt, Individually, (W.D. Tenn. 2026).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

SIMMONS BANK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:25-cv-02818-SHL-tmp ) ) WESTBRANCH, LLC; NEED SPACE ) WESTBRANCH, LLC; NEED SPACE ) MANAGEMENT, LLC; and MARION U. ) THREATT, Individually, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTING RECEIVER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Simmons Banks’s Expedited Motion and Incorporated Memorandum of Law Seeking (I) the Appointment of Receiver, (II) Injunctive Relief, (III) to Set Bond, and (IV) to Set Hearing, filed September 17, 2025. (ECF No. 11.) After initially setting a hearing on the matter for September 26, 2025, the case was stayed based on the fact that Defendants Westbranch, LLC, Need Space Westbranch, LLC, and Need Space Management, LLC, each filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, on or around September 24, 2025. (ECF No. 17.) On November 7, the Court lifted the stay after the bankruptcy petitions were dismissed, and set a hearing on the Motion for November 13. (ECF No. 22.) At the Parties’ request, that hearing was continued, and reset as a status conference for December 15. (ECF No. 25.)1 The

1 The request was necessary, according to the Parties, because “Defendant Need Space Westbranch, LLC filed a second Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy [Dkt # 23] which stated status conference was held and the Parties represented to the Court that the issues in the Motion, and the case in general, may soon be resolved. (See ECF No. 29.) The Court ordered the Parties to provide an update as to their resolution efforts, and, that, absent a notice of a resolution, Defendants were to file a response to the Motion by January 20, 2026.

The Parties did not file an update with the Court and, on January 20, Defendants Westbranch, LLC, Need Space Westbranch, LLC, and Need Space Management, LLC, filed a response to the Motion characterized as a “Response/Notice of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Receiver, Injunctive Relief, to Set Bond, & to Set Hearing.” (ECF No. 30.) The upshot of the response is that “Defendants do not oppose the appointment of a receiver in this matter.” (Id. at PageID 253.) For the reasons that follow, and consistent with the terms discussed herein, the Motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND2 This matter involves four loans issued by Plaintiff Simmons Bank, two to Defendant

Westbranch, LLC (“Westbranch”), and one each to Defendants Need Space Westbranch, LLC (“NSW”), and Need Space Management, LLC (“NSM”). (ECF No. 1 at PageID 4–8.) Defendant Marion U. Threatt is the sole member of each of the Defendant entities. (Id. at PageID 2–3.) Simmons Bank asserts that Defendants are in default on the loans, which collectively had the original principal amount of $6,677,625. According to Simmons Bank,

that on or about November 6, 2025, Defendant Need Space Westbranch, LLC conveyed all of its rights, title, and interests in all of its real estate, accounts, and personal property to Need Space Hacks Cross, LLC,” which then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Northern District of Mississippi. (ECF No. 24 at PageID 243.)

2 The facts herein are taken from Simmons Bank’s Verified Complaint. (ECF No. 11)Defendants assert that “[t]he facts of this matter are essentially as the count set forth in the Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Receiver.” (ECF No. 30 at PageID 253.) Defendants have breached the loan agreements’ terms, including by failing to make timely or sufficient payments, failure to pay property taxes on the real property that secures two of the loans, and failure to maintain required and sufficient insurance on the real and personal property that secure all of the loans. (Id. at PageID 2, 7.)

Simmons Bank asserts that Defendants’ obligations under the loan agreements have been accelerated, demand has been made, and the outstanding balances remain unpaid. (Id. at PageID 1–2.) According to Simmons Bank, the loans “are secured by, among other things, deeds of trust encumbering certain real property located in Desoto County, Mississippi as well as, but not limited to, the equipment, rents, and personal property (eight (8) Ford Econoline vans) owned by [Defendants].” (Id. at PageID 2.) Simmons Bank sent a default and demand letter dated June 12, 2025, to Defendants. (Id. at PageID 7.) As of the filing of the lawsuit, the loans had an outstanding balance of $6,431,664.39. (Id. at PageID 2.) Simmons Bank asserts that Defendants have not been current on their loan payments for more than six months, and continue to divert funds from the income-producing collateral that

was used to secure the loans. (Id. at PageID 7.) Moreover, Simmons Bank has been forced to pay significant past due taxes on the real property collateral, as Defendants’ failure to pay the property taxes made the collateral subject to tax sales. (Id. at PageID 7–8.) Simmons Bank contends that, absent the appointment of a receiver, there will be a failure to preserve the real and personal property collateral, “greatly reduc[ing] the value of [its] collateral, result in irreparable harm to [it], and leave [it] without adequate remedy at law.” (ECF No. 11 at PageID 197.) Simmons Bank “believes that the Defendants are insolvent, thereby making any final judgment under the Complaint generally ineffectual without preservation of the [collateral].” (Id. at PageID 197–98.) In its complaint, and again in the Motion now before the Court, Simmons Bank asserts that it is entitled to the appointment of a receiver, as well as the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction that would provide the receiver with the means for implementing the purposes of the receivership. To effectuate the receivership, Simmons Bank seeks an order that

does the following: • Appoints MS Manager LLC as Receiver in this matter; and grants the Receiver all the rights, powers, duties, authority, and protections ordinarily granted to a receiver and necessary to take possession of, maintain, and preserve the Real Property Collateral and Personal Property Collateral, including, without limitation, (i) the right to sell the Real Property Collateral and Personal Property Collateral, or any part thereof, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2001, et seq., upon the request of Lender and in accordance with terms hereafter approved by Lender and the Court; (ii) the right to hire professionals, on terms approved by Lender, to help the Receiver protect, preserve and liquidate the Real Property Collateral and Personal Property Collateral; and (iii) the right to hire an accountant.

• Orders that the Receiver’s compensation be paid monthly in arrears from the revenues generated from the operation and/or liquidation of the Real Property Collateral and Personal Property Collateral in an amount equal to $8,000.00 per month (and prorated for any partial months), plus the Receiver’s reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the Receiver’s duties; provided however, the Lender requests that this Court require the Receiver to submit monthly reports to Lender documenting his time and expenses by the twenty-fifth day of each month for the immediately preceding month, during the pendency of the receivership.

• Empowers the Receiver to take all necessary action to operate and manage Real Property Collateral and Personal Property Collateral.

(ECF No. 11 at PageID 202–03.)

APPLICABLE LAW A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 659–60 (2008). It should only be granted when the balance of interests weighs in favor of the moving party.

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

Related

Munaf v. Geren
553 U.S. 674 (Supreme Court, 2008)
Liberty Coins v. David Goodman
748 F.3d 682 (Sixth Circuit, 2014)
D.T. v. Sumner Cty. Sch.
942 F.3d 324 (Sixth Circuit, 2019)
Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n
64 F.3d 1026 (Sixth Circuit, 1995)
Stryker Employment Company, LL v. Jafar Abbas
60 F.4th 372 (Sixth Circuit, 2023)
EOG Resources, Inc. v. Lucky Land Management, LLC
134 F.4th 868 (Sixth Circuit, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Simmons Bank v. Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Westbranch, LLC; Need Space Management, LLC; and Marion U. Threatt, Individually, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-bank-v-westbranch-llc-need-space-westbranch-llc-need-space-tnwd-2026.