United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 41)
A. Dooley, United States District Judge.
of the Case
action arises out of the Defendant's purported default on
two promissory notes issued by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
moved for summary judgment on October 26, 2018 as to not only
its claims but also as to the Defendant's affirmative
defense and counterclaim. (ECF No. 41.) The Defendant,
proceeding pro se, filed an affidavit in opposition
to summary judgment on November 26, 2018. (ECF No. 56.)
However, at oral argument on June 13, 2019, the Defendant
conceded that he owed the Plaintiff monies under the two
Promissory Notes and that he was in default, as well. The
Defendant challenged, however, the amount which Plaintiff
claims to be due and owing. The Defendant consented to the
entry of summary judgment as to liability but reserved the
right to contest the amount of the debt at a hearing on
damages. Accordingly, the Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED as to liability only.
Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment if it demonstrates
that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and that [it is] entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catretti, 477 U.S. 317,
322 (1986) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). A dispute is genuine
if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party, ” while a
fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the
suit under governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). At summary
judgment, the movant bears the initial burden of
demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323;
Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 148 (2d Cir.
2004). Once a movant has met this burden, the non-movant
“must come forward with ‘specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.'”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
following facts are either undisputed or expressly admitted.
On February 9, 2007, the Defendant, as borrower, promised to
pay the Plaintiff, as lender, the principal sum of $508,
917.54, payable with interest. The loan had an original
maturity date of December 29, 2008 which was subsequently
extended to December 31, 2014. This agreement is set forth in
a Promissory Note (Note 1). Through an amended and restated
promissory note (Note 2), dated July 27, 2012, the Defendant
promised to pay the Plaintiff the principal sum of $781,
959.18, with interest. Note 2 had a maturity date of December
31, 2014. The Defendant made his last payment to the
Plaintiff on February 24, 2016 even though there remained an
outstanding balance on the notes. On August 1, 2017, the
Plaintiff, through its counsel, issued a Notice of Default
and Demand for Payment to the Defendant regarding Notes 1 and
Plaintiff brings a two-count complaint sounding in breach of
contract. Count One pertains to Note 1 and Count Two pertains
to Note 2. “As a promissory note ‘is nothing more
than a written contract for the payment of money,'
contract law must govern.” McKeever v. Kiore,
78 Conn.App. 783, 793 (2003) (quoting Appliances, Inc. v.
Yost, 181 Conn. 207, 210 (1980)). To prove a breach of
contract claim under Connecticut law, the Plaintiff must
establish: “(1) the existence of a contract or
agreement; (2) the defendant's breach of the contract or
agreement; and (3) damages resulting from the breach.”
Chem-Tek, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 816 F.Supp.
123, 131 (D. Conn. 1993) (citing O'Hara v.
State, 218 Conn. 628 (1991)). Here, there is no dispute
that Note 1 and Note 2 are valid contracts. Nor is there a
dispute that the Defendant breached these agreements when he
failed to make payments due and owing thereunder.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against
the Defendant as to Counts One and Two and the motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED as to liability.
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41) is
GRANTED, but as to liability only. The
Defendant retains the right to challenge the Plaintiff's
proof as to the amount of the judgment sought and to present
evidence regarding the same. A hearing to determine the
Plaintiff's damages (the amount of the judgment) shall be
held on August 22, 2019 at 10:30 a.m. A separate calendar