Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01989/USCOURTS-alnd-2_14-cv-01989-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PNC BANK, NATIONAL )

ASSOCIATION, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) Case No. 2:14-cv-01989-HGD

)

WORLEY BROTHERS SCRAP & )

IRON METAL OF ALABAMA LLC, )

et al., )

)

Defendants )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The above-entitled civil action is before the court on the motion for summary

judgment filed by plaintiff, PNC Bank National Association (PNC),seeking judgment

against defendants Worley Brothers Scrap & Iron Metal of Alabama, LLC (Worley,

LLC), Johnny Worley and Lonny Worley. (Doc. 21). The parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),

Rule 73, Fed.R.Civ.P., and Local Rule 73.2. 

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint on October 16, 2014,

against defendants, asserting causes of action for breach of a promissory note and

Page 1 of 7

FILED

 2015 May-22 AM 09:40

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:14-cv-01989-HGD Document 24 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 7
breach of a guaranty agreement. Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment on

March 27, 2015. Under Appendix II to the Initial Order Governing All Further

Proceedings entered in this action on December 17, 2014, defendants had 21 days in

which to file their response to the motion. (See Doc. 13 at 16). To date, defendants

have neither filed any response nor sought an extension of time in which to do so. 

Therefore, the summary judgment motion is unopposed. 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Rule 56(c) provides:

(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot

be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including

depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or

declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the

motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence

or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce

admissible evidence to support the fact.

(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible

Evidence. A party may object that the material cited to support or

dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in

evidence.

Page 2 of 7

Case 2:14-cv-01989-HGD Document 24 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 7
(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited

materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.

(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to

support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set

out factsthat would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant

or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 

Plaintiff, as the party seeking summary judgment, bears the initial

responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and

identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes

demonstratesthe absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Clark v. Coats &Clark,

Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). A genuine issue of material

fact is shown when the non-moving party produces evidence so that a reasonable

factfinder could return a verdict in its favor. Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecomms.,

Inc., 498 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 2007). If the non-moving party fails to make a

sufficient showing on an essential element of its case with respect to which it has the

burden of proof, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477

U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. Rule 56(e), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that if a party

“fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c),

Page 3 of 7

Case 2:14-cv-01989-HGD Document 24 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 7
the court may: . . . (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; [or]

(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials–including the

facts considered undisputed–show that the movant is entitled to it. . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P.

56(e)(2) and (3). In reviewing whether the non-moving party has met its burden, the

court muststop short of weighing the evidence and making credibility determinations

of the truth of the matter. The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all

justifiable inferences are to be drawn in its favor. Tipton v. Bergrohr GMBH-Siegen,

965 F.2d 994, 998-99 (11th Cir. 1992) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

However, speculation or conjecture cannot create a genuine issue of material fact. 

Cordoba v. Dillard’s, Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181 (11th Cir. 2005). A “mere scintilla

of evidence” in support of the non-moving party also cannot overcome a motion for

summary judgment. Young v. City of Palm Bay, 358 F.3d 859, 860 (11th Cir. 2004). 

DISCUSSION

For purposes of summary judgment, the following facts are undisputed. 

Defendant, Worley, LLC, is a Limited Liability Company formed under the laws of

the State of Alabama whose principal place of business is in Birmingham, Jefferson

County, Alabama. Its members are defendants Johnny Worley and Lonny Worley. 

(Docs. 1-1 & 23-1, Business Entity Details from Alabama Secretary of State; Docs.

1-2 & 23-2, Articles of Formation for Worley Brothers Scrap & Iron Metal of

Page 4 of 7

Case 2:14-cv-01989-HGD Document 24 Filed 05/22/15 Page 4 of 7
Alabama, LLC, from Alabama Secretary of State). On March 19, 2013, PNC loaned

Worley LLC $425,000. (Doc. 23-3, Affidavit of Frank Kieran, at ¶ 4). The loan is

evidenced by a Promissory Note. (Id.; Docs. 1-3 & 23-4, Promissory Note). The

Promissory Note was secured by the personal guaranties of Johnny Worley and

Lonny Worley, dated March 19, 2013, in which Johnny Worley and Lonny Worley

agreed to be obligated for the payment and performance of the indebtedness and

obligations of Worley, LLC under the Note. (Docs. 1-5 & 23-4, Johnny Worley

Guaranty; Docs. 1-6 & 23-5, Lonny Worley Guaranty; Doc. 23-3, Affidavit of Frank

Kieran, at ¶¶ 5, 6). 

Worley, LLC has defaulted on the Note for reasons, including, but not limited

to, Worley, LLC having failed to pay sums due when called for under the terms of the

Note. The Note has matured but Worley, LLC hasfailed to pay the balance due under

the terms of the Note. (Doc. 23-3, Affidavit of Frank Kieran, at ¶ 8). By virtue of

Worley, LLC’s default, the Note was accelerated and demand was made upon

Worley, LLC for payment of all sums due under the accelerated Note. (Id. at ¶ 9;

Docs. 1-4 & 23-5, Demand Letter dated August 27, 2014). Under the Note and

Guaranties, all defendants are obligated to reimburse PNC for all costs of collection,

including without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees. (Docs. 1-3 & 23-4,

Page 5 of 7

Case 2:14-cv-01989-HGD Document 24 Filed 05/22/15 Page 5 of 7
Promissory Note, at 2; Docs. 1-5 & 23-4, Johnny Worley Guaranty, at 2-3; Docs. 1-6

& 23-5, Lonny Worley Guaranty, at 2-3). 

PNC hired the firm of Sirote & Permutt, P.C., to collect the indebtedness owed

to PNC by Worley, LLC, Johnny Worley and Lonny Worley. (Doc. 23-3, Affidavit

of Frank Kieran, at ¶ 15). A total of $7,948.00 in fees has been incurred by PNC by

hiring the law firm of and lawyers at Sirote & Permutt, P.C., to collect the

indebtedness owing under the Note. (Doc. 23-6, Affidavit of Rodney E. Nolan). The

court finds that the hourly rates of $175 for Sirote & Permutt attorneys Rodney E.

Nolan, George M. Neal, Jr., C. Lee Reeves and Stephen B. Porterfield, and $90 for

paralegal Susan D. Conger are reasonable and customary for the relevant market. The

court further finds that the number of hours expended by the Sirote & Permutt

attorneys and paralegal (49.4) in pursuing collection of the amounts owed by

defendants to plaintiff are reasonable and necessary. 

As of February 25, 2015, defendants owe PNC $435,998.92 (principal of

$422,629.44 plus accrued interest of $12,915.64). Interest continues to accrue at a

per diem rate of $57.89. (Doc. 23-3, Affidavit of Frank Kieran, at ¶ 3). Defendants

also owe $453.84 in late charges. (Id. at ¶ 10, 12 & 13). Defendants also owe

$7,948.00 in attorney’s fees. 

Page 6 of 7

Case 2:14-cv-01989-HGD Document 24 Filed 05/22/15 Page 6 of 7
CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that plaintiff is entitled to summary

judgment in its favor and against defendants, jointly and severally, in the total sum

of $443,946.92, which is comprised of principal in the sum of $422,629.44, accrued

interest in the amount of $12,915.64 as of February 25, 2015, with additional interest

at a rate of $57.89 per day to the date of entry of judgment ($4,978.54 as of May 22,

2015), late charges in the amount of $453.84, and attorney’s fees of $7,948.00.

A separate order in conformity with this MemorandumOpinion will be entered

contemporaneously herewith.

DONE this 22nd day of May, 2015.

 

HARWELL G. DAVIS, III

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 7 of 7

Case 2:14-cv-01989-HGD Document 24 Filed 05/22/15 Page 7 of 7