1 

4852-6639-7618.4 

KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

Brian H. Richardson (VSB No. 92477) 

901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com 

Brian.Richardson@kutakrock.com

Counsel for Peter J. Barrett, Trustee

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

)

In re: ) Chapter 7

)

POTOMAC PILE DRIVER, LLC, ) Case No. 17-34078 (KRH)

)

Debtor. )

)

)

PETER J. BARRETT, TRUSTEE )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Adv. Proc. No. 19-03079 (KRH)

)

BRAD MARTIN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO (I) MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND (II) 

OBJECTION TO FINDING OF DEFAULT FILED BY DEFENDANTS 

Plaintiff, Peter J. Barrett, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Potomac Pile 

Driver, LLC (the “Trustee”), by counsel, states as follows for its response and objection to the 

Motion for Continuance Objection to Finding of Default (the “Objection”) [Docket No. 45] filed 

by Robin McCormack (“Ms. McCormack”) and Shoreline Service and Design, LLC 

(“Shoreline” and together with Ms. McCormack, the “Respondents”): 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 51 Filed 01/21/20 Entered 01/21/20 15:48:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 7
2 

4852-6639-7618.4 

Background 

1. For years, the Trustee has attempted to give Shoreline and its alleged owner, Ms. 

McCormack, an opportunity to explain why Shoreline is not an alter ego of Potomac Pile Driver, 

LLC (the “Debtor”) and Brad Martin and why the allegations ultimately alleged in the Complaint 

[Docket No. 1] were not accurate. 

2. The initial opportunity for the Respondents to defend themselves was over two 

years ago, when the Trustee sought to examine Shoreline pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal 

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Rule(s)”) [Case No. 17-34078; Docket No. 26] (the “2004 

Motion”). Ms. McCormack attempted to file a response on behalf of Shoreline but was advised 

that she could not represent Shoreline and that Shoreline needed to have legal counsel [Case No. 

17-34078; Docket No. 38]. Shoreline refused to correct the deficiency. 

3. Shoreline also failed to appear for the hearing on the 2004 Motion and 

accordingly, the Court granted the 2004 Motion and entered an order compelling Shoreline to 

produce certain documents to the Trustee [Case No. 17-34078; Docket No. 49]. 

4. The Respondents, however, continued to disregard this Court, so much so that on 

June 20, 2018, the Court entered sanctions against Shoreline and granted a monetary judgment 

against Shoreline in the amount of $2,620.00, which sanctions Shoreline has still failed to pay 

[Case No. 17-34078; Docket No. 77]. 

5. Unable to obtain information to contrast the alleged alter ego claims, the Trustee 

proceeded with his Complaint against the Respondents, among others, on September 6, 2019. 

6. On September 10, 2019, the Clerk of this Court issued the Summons and Notice of 

Pre-Trial Conference to be served with the Complaint (the “Original Summons”) [Docket No. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 51 Filed 01/21/20 Entered 01/21/20 15:48:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 7
3 

4852-6639-7618.4 

2]. The Original Summons was properly served on Respondents and required the Respondents 

to file a response to the Complaint no later than October 10, 2019. 

7. On October 9, 2019, the Trustee was contacted by an attorney who identified 

himself as being in contact with Shoreline and Ms. McCormack regarding these proceedings. 

Such attorney requested an extension on behalf of the Respondents of the deadline to file a 

response to the Complaint. The purpose of the extension was to allow Respondents time to 

retain bankruptcy counsel. 

8. The Trustee granted the requested extension to the Respondents through October 

18, 2019 and Shoreline was again reminded that corporations may only appear by counsel in 

these proceedings. 

9. Despite the extension and the reminder regarding the obligation to retain counsel, 

Ms. McCormack again attempted to file a response on behalf of Shoreline on October 18, 2019 

[Docket No. 8]. 

10. Around the same time, however, the Trustee learned that the service information 

for Potomac Pile Driver, LLC had changed immediately before the filing of the Complaint. 

Accordingly, on October 18, 2019, at the request of counsel for the Trustee, the Clerk of this 

Court issued the Alias Summons and Notice of Pre-Trial Conference to be served with the 

Complaint (the “Alias Summons”) [Docket No. 9]. 

11. The Alias Summons and Complaint was likewise properly served on Respondents 

pursuant to Rule 7004 and an affidavit was filed with the Court certifying that the Alias 

Summons and Complaint were properly and timely served in accordance with the Rules [Docket 

No. 16]. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 51 Filed 01/21/20 Entered 01/21/20 15:48:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 7
4 

4852-6639-7618.4 

12. On November 18, 2019, Ms. McCormack, for a third time, again attempted to file 

a response with this Court on behalf of Shoreline. 

13. On December 11, 2019, the Trustee moved for entry of default against Shoreline 

[Docket No. 21] given the deficient filing. The motion was served on the Respondents and 

specifically advised that the attempts of Ms. McCormack to file a response on behalf of 

Shoreline were ineffective and the basis for entry of default. Shoreline did not respond. 

14. On December 13, 2019, a Notice of Deficient Filing was issued to Shoreline 

[Docket No. 24], again advising Shoreline that it must be represented by counsel and requiring a 

corrected response by December 27, 2019. 

15. Shoreline again ignored a deficiency notice from this Court. 

16. On January 2, 2020 an Order Striking Pleading as to Shoreline Service & Design, 

LLC was entered by the Court [Docket No. 31]. 

17. On January 2, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Default Judgment (the 

“Motion”) [Docket No. 32] seeking default judgment against the three corporate defendants who 

have failed to timely answer the Complaint, including Shoreline. 

18. On January 15, 2020, the Clerk entered default against Shoreline [Docket No. 38]. 

19. Despite having been advised in 2017, again last October and twice in December, 

that Shoreline would need to be represented by counsel in order to continue in these proceedings, 

Shoreline waited until immediately before the entry of judgment to do just that – retain counsel. 

Based on a delay which has been going on for more than two years, which is the sole result of 

Shoreline’s inaction, it now seeks relief from default and a continuance of these proceedings. 

Such request is without merit. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 51 Filed 01/21/20 Entered 01/21/20 15:48:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 7
5 

4852-6639-7618.4 

Objection and Response 

20. As an initial matter, the Objection fails because it no bases are given, in law or in 

fact, for why entry of default judgment is not appropriate or why the entry of default should be 

vacated. 

21. Similarly, any request for a continuance should also be denied. Procedurally, the 

request for a continuance contained in the Objection, and the Motion to Sever [Docket No. 47], 

have not been properly set for hearing. Both matters seek affirmative relief which require 14 

days’ notice of hearing under Local Rule 9013-1 or an expedited hearing. The Respondents did 

not use the proper docket entry to set the Objection or Motion to Sever for hearing, they only 

gave seven days’ notice of their motion and they have not requested nor been granted an 

expedited hearing. Accordingly, such requests should not be considered by this Court until 

proper notice is given.

22. Perhaps more important, however, is the fact that the Respondents fail to establish 

any defense to the entry of default judgment or any substantive reason why a continuance should 

be granted. 

23. For their Objection, Respondents assert that the Complaint is without merit, and 

indicate that due to only recently having retained counsel, additional time is needed to review the 

Complaint with counsel and prepare a proper response.1 Such assertions do not explain why 

Shoreline failed to timely or properly respond for four months or why default judgment should 

not be entered. 

24. Although the Trustee understands that counsel was just recently involved, the fact 

remains that Shoreline has already been deemed in default. Shoreline was given multiple 

 

1

 The Objection seeks the same relief with respect to Ms. McCormack, but as the Motion makes clear, default 

judgment is not being sought with respect to Ms. McCormack at this time. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 51 Filed 01/21/20 Entered 01/21/20 15:48:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 7
6 

4852-6639-7618.4 

extensions of the deadline to file a response, including by consent of the Trustee and was advised 

on multiple occasions it needed counsel to appear on its behalf. Despite this, no justification is 

provided in the Objection as to why Shoreline was unable to retain counsel at an earlier date or 

comply with the response deadlines, why the entry of default should be vacated or why default 

judgment is not otherwise appropriate. 

25. Shoreline has had ample opportunity to answer the Complaint. Despite these 

facts, Shoreline has refused to do so and instead, has lodged an 11th hour response that is wholly 

unsupported by fact or law. 

26. Shoreline’s own delay in obtaining counsel and responding to the Complaint does 

not justify or excuse its failure to appropriately or timely respond. 

27. As supported by the Motion, the Trustee is entitled to default judgment against the 

Defendants, including Shoreline. 

28. Notice of this Motion has been given to counsel for the Respondents. In light of 

the nature of the relief requested, the Trustee respectfully submits that no further notice is 

required. 

WHEREFORE, the Trustee respectfully requests that the Court overrule the Objection 

and enter an Order granting the relief requested in the Motion. 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 51 Filed 01/21/20 Entered 01/21/20 15:48:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 7
7 

4852-6639-7618.4 

Dated: January 21, 2020 PETER J. BARRETT, TRUSTEE 

 

By: /s/ Brian H. Richardson 

__________________________________ 

KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

Brian H. Richardson (VSB No. 92477) 

901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com 

Brian.Richardson@kutakrock.com

Counsel for Peter J. Barrett, Trustee

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on January 21, 2020, a copy of the 

foregoing document was served via CM/ECF and/or first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the 

following: 

Potomac Pile Driver, LLC 

c/o Bianca Cook, Registered Agent 

103 Randolph Road 

Fredericksburg, VA 22405 

John C. Morgan Jr., 

New Day Legal, PLLC 

98 Alexandria Turnpike, Suite 10 

Warrenton, VA 20186 

Counsel to the Debtor 

APD3, LLC 

c/o Jacob Lillard, President/Member 

27 Third Street 

Colonial Beach, VA 22443 

Shoreline Service and Design, LLC; and 

Robin McCormack 

c/o Charles H. Krumbein, Esq. 

Krumbein & Associates, PLLC 

1650 Willow Lawn Drive, Suite 201 

Richmond, VA 23230 

 /s/ Brian H. Richardson 

 Counsel 

Case 19-03079-KRH Doc 51 Filed 01/21/20 Entered 01/21/20 15:48:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 7