United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
CASCADE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, PLAINTIFF.
LIVINGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC; CHESTNUT DEVELOPERS, LLC; DAVID LANDRUM; and MICHAEL L. SHARPE, DEFENDANTS. AND LIVINGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC; CHESTNUT DEVELOPERS, LLC; and MICHAEL L. SHARPE, COUNTERCLAIMANTS.
CASCADE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, COUNTERDEFENDANT. AND LIVINGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC; CHESTNUT DEVELOPERS, LLC; and MICHAEL L. SHARPE, THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS.
MARK CALVERT, THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
AS TO DEFENDANT DAVID LANDRUM
GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT is  Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to
Defendant David Landrum filed by Plaintiff Cascade Capital
Group, LLC (“Cascade”). Defendant David Landrum
has not responded to the Motion, and his time for doing so
has long since run. Having considered the Motion, the record,
and applicable law, the Court concludes that Cascade's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to David Landrum
should be granted.
lawsuit derives from Defendants' alleged default on a
Promissory Note (“the Note”), as modified by a
subsequent Forbearance Agreement (“the
Agreement”), used to fund the re-development of the old
Town of Livingston in Madison County, Mississippi.
(See Am. Compl., ECF No. 8.) Cascade's Amended
Complaint seeks the appointment of a receiver to take
possession and control of Defendants' property - which is
designated as collateral in the Note and the Agreement - and
a joint and several judgment against Defendants for the
principal and interest due on the Note (as modified by the
Agreement), attorneys' fees, and collection costs.
Livingston Holdings, LLC (“Livingston”), Chestnut
Developers, LLC (“Chestnut”), and Michael L.
Sharpe filed amended answers to Cascade's complaint on
August 21, 2018, asserting both counterclaims and third party
claims. (Sharpe Am. Answer, Countercl., & Third Party
Compl., ECF No. 51; Livingston & Chestnut Am. Answer,
Countercl., & Third Party Compl., ECF No. 52.) However,
Defendant David Landrum filed an Answer in which he admitted
to all of Cascade's allegations.
filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on
October 12, 2018, after having already filed a  Motion
for Summary Judgment as to claims between Cascade and the
other defendants on October 4, 2018. Given the conflicting
stances taken by the different defendants and the importance
of avoiding contradictory factual findings, the Court
withheld ruling on the instant Motion until first disposing
of the summary judgment motion. The Court has now resolved
the summary judgment motion and determined, among other
things, that (1) the Note and the Agreement are enforceable
and (2) Livingston, Chestnut, and Sharpe breached those
contracts. Accordingly, the Court turns now to the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings as to David Landrum.
instant Motion argues that, as between Cascade and Landrum,
the material facts are not in dispute and a judgment on the
merits can be rendered by looking to the substance of the
pleadings and any judicially noticed facts. (Mem. Supp. Mot.
J. Pleadings 2, ECF No. 77 (citing Keys v. Safeway Ins.
Co., 556 F.Supp.2d 586, 588 (S.D.Miss. 2008).)
“Landrum has admitted all of the allegations of the
Amended Complaint and has not asserted any affirmative
defense that would preclude entry of judgment against
Standard of Review
motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is
subject to the same standard as a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6).” Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d
413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). “[A] complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). A claim is facially plausible “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. In deciding a
Rule 12(c) motion, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts
as true and views them in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff. Linicomn v. Hill, 902 F.3d 529, 533 (5th
plaintiff asserting a breach of contract claim has the burden
to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, “1. the
existence of a valid and binding contract; and 2. that the
defendant has broken, or breached it.” Bus.
Commc'ns, Inc. v. Banks, 90 So.3d 1221, 1224-25
(Miss. 2012). Cascade alleges that Landrum executed the Note
and the Agreement, that these contracts are binding and
enforceable under Mississippi law, and that Landrum breached
these contracts by failing to make scheduled loan payments
prescribed by the Note and the Agreement. Landrum admits that
the Note and the Agreement are valid, binding contracts, to
which he is a party, and that he defaulted on both. Cascade
is therefore entitled to judgment on the pleadings regarding
its breach of contract claim against David Landrum.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the 
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Defendant David
Landrum filed by ...