Smith Central Regional Center, LLC v. MFH Properties, LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 SMITH CENTRAL REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, CASE NO. 2:25-CV-1047-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 12 v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 MFH PROPERTIES, LLC, 14 Defendant.

15 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Smith Central Regional Center LLC’s Motion for 16 Summary Judgment. Dkt. 14.1 After consideration of the record, the Motion for Summary 17 Judgment (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED. 18 I. Background 19 Plaintiff Smith Central Regional Center LLC (“SCRC”) alleges SCRC and Defendant 20 MFH Properties, LLC (“MFH”) entered into a Sponsorship Agreement, wherein MFH agreed to 21 pay certain sums to SCRC in exchange for SCRC providing sponsorship services to MFH under 22 23 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and Local Rule MJR 13, the parties 24 have consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 7. 1 the EB- 5 Immigrant Investor Program. Dkt. 1. SCRC contends MFH has failed to pay a 2 substantial portion of the amounts owed under the contract and now seeks payment of the 3 amount owed and attorney fees. Id. 4 SCRC filed the Motion for Summary Judgment on December 16, 2025. Dkts. 14, 15

5 (supporting evidence). A response to the Motion for Summary Judgment was due on or before 6 January 6, 2026. MFH has not filed a response and, on January 8, 2026, SCRC filed a reply 7 (titled Notice of Non-Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment). Dkts. 16, 17 (supporting 8 evidence). Evidence indicates MFH does not intend to respond to the Motion for Summary 9 Judgment. See Dkt. 17. SCRC requested oral argument; however, the Court has considered the 10 record and finds this matter can be resolved on the record without oral argument. 11 II. Standard of Review 12 Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, discovery, and disclosure materials on 13 file, and any affidavits, show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the 14 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party is

15 entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient 16 showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which the nonmoving party has the 17 burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). There is no genuine issue of 18 fact for trial where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for 19 the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 20 (1986) (nonmoving party must present specific, significant probative evidence, not simply “some 21 metaphysical doubt”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conversely, a genuine dispute over a 22 material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute, 23 requiring a judge or jury to resolve the differing versions of the truth. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

24 1 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 253 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 2 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 III. Discussion 4 SCRC seeks summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, the sole claim in this

5 case. Dkt.14. 6 A. Evidence 7 The evidence shows SCRC is a “regional center” within the meaning of the EB-5 8 Immigration Investor Program under the Immigration Act of 1990. Dkt. 15, Smith Dec., ¶ 3. 9 SCRC sponsors qualifying investments by foreign investors seeking to establish permanent 10 residency in the United States. Id. MFH is a property developer that is renovating and 11 redeveloping the Kansas City Club, a building located in Kansas City, Missouri. Id. at ¶ 4. SCRC 12 and MFH executed and entered into a Sponsorship Agreement (“Agreement”) on April 6, 2017. 13 Id. at ¶ 5.2 “SCRC has performed, and continues to perform, all of its obligations under section 14 1.4 of the Agreement.” Dkt. 15, Smith Dec., ¶ 9. MFH has not paid SCRC all amounts due and

15 owed to SCRC under the Agreement. Id. at ¶ 10. As of December 15, 2025, there is an 16 outstanding balance of $441,676.71 owed by MFH to SCRC for services performed under the 17 Agreement. Id. 18 Section 10.2 of the Agreement provides that the Agreement is “governed by and 19 construed using Washington law, without giving effect to Washington conflict of law provisions 20 or to constructive presumptions favoring either Party.” Dkt. 15 at 19 (Section 10.2). Under the 21 Agreement, the parties consent to venue and jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located in 22

23 2 SCRC was named Central Western Regional Center LLC at the time the Agreement was signed. Dkt. 15, Smtih Dec., ¶ 6. In July of 2017, Central Western Regional Center LLC changed its time to SCRC. Id. Central 24 Western Regional Center LLC and SCRC refer to the same legal entity. Id. 1 Washington for disputes arising under the Agreement. Id. The Agreement incorrectly states 2 SCRC, a Washington limited liability company, is located in Missouri and MFH, a Missouri 3 limited liability company, is located in Delaware. Dkt. 15, Smith Dec., ¶¶ 7-8. 4 B. Breach of Contract

5 To establish breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a valid 6 contract; (2) breach of that contract; and (3) resulting damages. See Storti v. Univ. of Wash., 181 7 Wash.2d 28, 35 (2014). 8 Valid Contract. SCRC states MFH breached a contract between SCRC and MFH that 9 required MFH to pay certain amounts for SCRC’s performance of services under the Agreement. 10 See Dkt. 15. SCRC has provided a copy of the signed Agreement. Id. MFH does not provide 11 evidence that the Agreement is not valid. While the Agreement incorrectly identifies the location 12 of each party, the Court finds these errors are not material to the contractual terms and do not 13 invalidate the Agreement. See BKWSPOKANE LLC v. F.D.I.C., 12 F. Supp. 3d 1331, 1337 (E.D. 14 Wash. 2014) (finding a scrivener’s error in a contract identifying the wrong location of a

15 company did not invalidate the agreement between contracting parties). Therefore, the Court 16 finds there is a valid contract. 17 Breach of Contract. SCRC has provided undisputed evidence that it performed and 18 continues to perform the duties detailed in Section 1.4 of the Agreement. Dkt. 15, Smith Dec., 19 ¶9; see also Dkt. 15 at 8. The Agreement requires MFH to pay for the duties performed in 20 Section 1.4. See Dkt. 15 at 10-11 (Section 2.2-2.7). SCRC has provided undisputed evidence that 21 MFH has not provided payment for the services, breaching the terms of the Agreement. Dkt. 15, 22 Smith Dec., ¶ 10; Dkt. 15 at 24. 23

24 1 Damages. The evidence shows MFH’s breach of the Agreement has resulted in a failure 2 to pay $ 441,676.71 to SCRC. Dkt. 15, Smith Dec., ¶ 10; Dkt. 15 at 24. Therefore, there is 3 sufficient evidence to show SCRC has been damaged as a result of MFH’s breach of the 4 Agreement.

5 In summation, the evidence shows there is a valid contract, MFH breached the contract, 6 and that breach resulted in actual damages to SCRC. Therefore, SCRC is entitled to summary 7 judgment. 8 IV. Conclusion 9 Based on the record before the Court, MFH has failed to rebut SCRC’s showing that 10 MFH is liable for a breach of contract. Therefore, SCRC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 11 14) is GRANTED. Summary judgment is entered against Defendant MFH Properties, LLC and 12 in favor of Plaintiff Smith Central Regional Center LLC in the amount of $441,676.71. SCRC 13 may file a motion for attorney fees, as allowed under the Agreement, within 14 days of the date 14 of this Order.

15 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2026. 16 A 17 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24