The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n Di s t ri ct of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0083n.06 No. 09-4436 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT 111 DEBT ACQUISI TION HOL DING S, LL C, Plaintif f-Appellee

, v. SIX VENTURES L TD., ET AL., De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lla nts
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: M OORE an d ST RANCH, Cir cuit Judges; and COHN, District Judge. * COHN, District

Judge. Th is app eal ari ses ou t o f a $2 0, 90 0, 00 0. 0 0 s e c u r e d l oan . C FA Capital Partners, L L C (“CFA ”), pr edec essor-in- interest to plaintiff-a ppellee 111 D ebt Acquisitions Holdings, L L C (“111 De bt”), made the loan to Six Venture s, L td. (“S i x Venture s”) in conne ction with Six Venture s’ refinancing of si x apar tment complexes (“se cure d proper ties”). As part of the lo ant r an s a c t i o n , d e f

e n d an t s - a p p e l l an t s S t e v e nM
. K ah n( “ K ah n ” ) an d W i l l i a m C
. M c M e n a my (“Mc Menamy

”) ( collectively , “def

endants” ), al o n g wi t h Da v i d Rh o d eh am el (“ Rh o d ehame l”), signed a Gua ranty of Recour se Oblig ations (“guara nty ”). A lso as part of the loan transa ction, CFA a ssigne d its rights in the loan to 111 De bt. Six Ve ntu

re s d e fa ult e d o n th e loa

n. Af te r d e mand ingpay

me nt, bu t r e c e ivi ngno re sp on se from Six Venture s, 111 Debt filed a n action in district c ourt for br eac h of contra ct, fore closure, a nd11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 2 - reple vin of the secured properties, in order to obtain relief from the default. In the same a ction, 111 De bt a lso fi le d a

c la im a g a ins t de fe nd ants and Rho de hame l f

or brea ch of th e g ua

ra nty , th e c la im prese ntly at issue. Afte r Six Venture s filed for ba nkruptcy , 111 De b t fi l ed a motion for par tial summary judgme nt on the g uara nty claim, see king to hold def endants a nd Rhodehamel liable f

or the fu l l d eb t of Six Venture s. The district cour t gr anted 111 De bt’s motion for partial summary judgme nt and ult imately found def endants liable f

or $10,560,000, the re maining ba lance on the loan afte r for eclosure and sale of the sec ured pr operties. Def endants now a

ppeal the district c ourt’s g rant of pa rtial summa ry j u d g ment on various g ro un ds , in c lud ingthat th e re is a g e nu ine iss ue of

mate ri a l fa c t a s to wh e the r t he y c an b e fo un d li a

ble under the terms of the guara nty . Def endants a lso appea l the district court’s orde r direc ting e ntry of
a fi na l ju dg me nt o n g ro un ds tha t th e fi na l ju dg me nt w a s null if ie d w he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt in t he same
or de r g ra nte d 1 11 De bt’ s mo tio n to a me nd the fi rs t ame nd e d c omp la int
. For the re asons that follow, the district court’s g rant of partial summ ary judgme nt and final judgme nt order w ill be affir med. I. BACKG ROUND As stated, CFAenter ed into a secur ed loan ag ree ment with Six Ventures and late r assig ned its int ere st in the secure d loan to 111 Debt. De fenda nts and Rhodehamel we re guara ntors on the lo an. Af te r S ix Ve ntu

re s d e fa ult e d, 11 1 D e bt, a s p art

of a fo re c los ur e a c tio n, inc lud e d a c la im t o collect a g ainst the g uara n t y . I n i t s motion for partial summary judgme nt, 111 Debt claimed that def e n d an ts an d

Rh o d e h a me l w e r e li a

b le f o r th e f u ll a mo u n t o f

th e lo anma d e to Si x V e n tures be c a us e a sp ri ng ingre c ours e e ve nt ( “ SRE ” ) – a ba nk ru ptc y pe tit ion fi le d b y Rho de hame l on

be ha lf11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 3 - of Six Venture s – trigg ere d defe ndants’ and Rhode hamel’s oblig ations under the te rms of the loan ag ree ment and the guara

nty
. Following the bankr

uptcy petition f iling, the district c ourt issued a stay on 111 Debt' s action
un til the re so lut ion of

the ba nk ru ptc y pe tit ion . 1 11 De bt n e xt mov e d f or re lie f f ro m th e a uto matic stay , and the ba

nkruptcy court g rante d the m otion. During the hea ring , the bankr

uptcy court noted that th e re wa s “ so me qu e sti on a bo ut whe the r o r n ot [Rh od e hame l] ha d p ro pe r c or po ra te a uth or ity to make the f

iling, [but] ma[de] no findi n g i n t h i s reg ard.” Appellants’ B rief, A ppendix A. The bankruptc y

court late r dismissed the petition. The district cour

t lifted the stay

on 111 Debt’s a ct i o n following the bankr uptcy petition dismiss al, and later gr anted pa rtial summary

judgme nt to 111 Debt, finding defe ndants liable for the full amount of $20,900,000.00. D ef en d ants filed a motion for r econside ration to amend the judgme nt on the g round that the district court de nied them the opportunity to contest the aw ard w hen it entere d a fina l judgment. The district court gra nted t he mot ion and entered an amende d judgme nt for the f ull amount, subject to any applicable offse ts. The c ourt-appointed r ece iver late r sold the sec ured pr operties, and 111 Debt filed a motion asking the Court for lea

ve to a mend its amended complaint to r emove unne cessa ry claims and for a fina l judgment a g ainst defe ndants for $10,560,000.00, the balanc e of the loan af ter for eclosure and sale of the secur ed prope rties. The district c ourt conc luded that “justice r equire [d] the allowanc e of the a me ndme nt” re qu e ste d b y 11 1 D e bt d

ue to the fa c t that “ the Court ’s pr e vio us c on c e rn re late d to the potential off- set by

the fore closure [was] alleviated as t h e property [had] been sold.” District Court Do c . 2 85 , at p. 2-3
. F ur

the r, the Court c on c lud e d th a t be c a us e “ [a]ll oth e r c la ims a g a ins t a ll11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 4 - oth e r [d ]ef

e nd ants in t

he c a se ha [d] be e n r e so lve d b y the Court
. . . e ntr y of jud g me nt in [111 De bt’ s] favor [was] now appr opriate.” District Court Doc. 285, at p. 3. As a result, the Court g rante d 111 Debt’s motion and in the same order direc ted entry

of a f i n al j u d gm en t ag ainst defe ndants and Rho de hame l. II. G OV ERNI NG DO CU M EN TS A. Loa n Ag r e e m e nt Th e CF A- Six Ve ntu

re s lo an a g re e me nt c on ta ins the fo llo wi ngpe rt ine nt p ro vis ion s: 10.1 Ex culpation. . . . Notwithstanding any thing to the contra

ry in this Agre ement or any of t h e L o an Do cuments . . . (B ) Lender’s agre em ent not to pursue personal lia bili ty of Bor r owe r as se t for th abo ve SHA LL BEC OM E N UL L A ND VO ID and s hal l be of no furt he r for c e and effe c t, and the De bt sha ll be fullyr e c our se t o Bo r r o we r in t he e v e nt t ha t o ne o r m o r e o f t he fo ll o wi ng o c c ur s (eac h, a Spring ing Re c our se Ev e nt ) : . . . (3) the occ urrence of an y condition or eve nt described in either Sect ion 8.1(f) or Sect ion 8.1(g) and , wi th respe c t to su c h c on dit ion or e ve nt d e sc ri be d in Se c tio n 8 .1 (g ), e ith e r B or ro we r, any

Gu ara nto r o r a ny Pe rs on ow nin g an in te re st (d ir e c tly or ind ir e c tly

) i n B or ro we r o r a

ny Gu ara nto r c on se nts to, a ids , s oli c its , su pp or ts, or oth e rw ise c oo pe rate s o r c oll ud e s to c a us e su c h c on dit ion

or e ve nt o r f a ils to c on te st s uc h c on dit ion

or e ve nt. District Court Doc. 15-1, at p. 64 (emphasis adde d). 8.1 Events of De fault. An “ Event of De fault” sha ll ex ist with respect to the L oan if any of the followingshall occur : . . . (f) Bor r owe r or anyG uar ant or sha ll (i) make an assig nment for the benef it of cre ditors, or (ii) shall generally not be paying i ts debts as they be c om e due ; (g ) a r ece iver, liquidator or truste e shall be a ppointed for B orrowe r or a Guar antor; or B orrowe r or a Guar antor shall be a djudicated a [s] bankrupt or ins olv e nt; or anype ti ti on fo r bankr upt c y, r e or ga niz at ion or ar r ang e m e nt pur sua nt to fede r al b ankr upt c y la w, oranysim ila r fede r al o r st at e law, sha ll11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 5 - be fi led by or agains t, consente d to, or acquiesced in by, B orrower or G uar ant or , a s t he c as e m aybe ; or any proce eding for the dissolution or liquidation of Borr ower

or a G uara

ntor shall be instituted; provided, h owever, if such ap poin tm ent, adjudication, p etition or proc eeding w as invol untary and no t c ons e nt e d t o byBor r owe r or a G uar ant or , a s t he c as e m aybe , o nly upon the sam e not being di scharged, staye d or dismissed with in 60 d ays[.] District Court Doc. 15-1, at p. 56 (emphasis adde d). B. Guaranty The Gua ranty of Recour se Oblig ations ag ree ment betwee n Rhodehamel, Ka hn, and Mc Me namy , a s gua

ra nto rs , a nd CF A c on ta ins the fo llo wi ngpe rt ine nt p ro vis ion s: 1. Def initions
. . . (b ) T he te rm Gua ra nte e d O bli ga tio ns me ans (i ) B or

ro we r’s Rec ours e L iabilities, (ii) from and a fter the date that any SpringingRecourse Event occur s, pay

ment of all the De bt as and whe n the same i s d ue in ac corda nce with t h e L oan Doc uments (and whe ther a ccr ued prior to, on or

afte r such date)
. 2
. G u ar an t y. (a ) E a c h G ua

ra nto r h e re by

ir re vo c a bly , a bs olute ly and un c on dit ion a lly g uara ntees to L ender

the full, p ro m p t an d complete pa y ment when due of the Gu ara nte e d O bli g a tio ns . District Court Doc. 15-49, at p. 3. 5. Unconditional Chara cter of Oblig ations of Guar antors. . . . (b) The obligations of Guara ntors under this Guar anty , and the r ights of L e nd e r t o e nf

or c e the same by

pr oc e e din g s, wh e the r b y

a c tio n at la

w, su it i n eq u i t y o r o t h erwi s e, s h al l n o t b e i nan y wa y af fe ct edb y an y o f t h e f o l l o wi n g: (i) any i n s olvency , bankruptc y , liquidation, reorg anization, rea dj u s t m en t , compos ition, dis solution, receive rship, conser vatorship, winding up or o t h er simi lar proc eedinginvolving or a ffe cting Bor rowe r, the Proper

ty or any part ther eof, or

a Gua rantor; . . . Id. at pp. 5-6.11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 6 - III . D ISC USS ION A. S u b s ta n ti v e C l a i ms As stated, d ef

endants a rg ue that the district cour t erre d substantively

by g rantingpartial
summa ry jud gment as to lia

bil ity . Pa rt ic ula rl y , d e fe nd ants a sse rt

tha t th e g ua ra nty a g re e me nt i s ambig uous and, thus, that a g enuine iss u e o f m at er i al fa ct exist s as to whether defe ndants are persona lly

liable for the loan. Next, defe ndants asser t that an unauthoriz ed bankr uptcy filing c annot constitu t e a S R E. L ikewise, de fenda nts say the SRE clause wa s never trig g ere d and they

are not l i a b l e i nt h e i r

p e r s o n a l c a

p a c i t y. “ Th is c ourt

re vie ws a

dis tr ic t c ourt ' s g ra

nt o f su mm ary

jud g me nt de novo and applies the
same standard as the district court.” Alexande r v. CareSource , 576 F.3d 551, 557 ( 6th Cir. 2009). Particularly , summary judgme nt is appropr iate when “the movant shows that there is no gen u ine dis pu te a s to any

mate ri a l f

a c t.” F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( a ). “ A p art y a sse rt ingthat a

fa c t c ann ot b e or

is g enuinely disputed m u s t support the asser tion by . . . citing to pa

rticular pa

rts of mater ials in the
rec ord, including . . . aff idavits or decla

ra t i o n s . ” Fed. R. Civ. P . 56(c) (1)( A). All fa cts and infere nces should be vie wed in the lig ht m o s t favor able to the nonmoving party
. Adicke s v. S.H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 158–59 (1970). 1. Gu aran ty

Am biguit y Def endants fir st argue that guara nty section 5(b) (i), su

pra , which states that a

g uara ntor’s obligations are not af

fec ted in the eve nt of a ba nkruptcy , is ambiguous or conflicts w i th other provisions. Defe ndants say that the section is a mbiguous be cause it could be interpre ted to mean that de fe nd ants , a s gua

ra nto rs , h a ve no a dd iti on a l ob lig a tio ns in the e ve nt o f a ba nk ru ptc y . D e fe nd ants ’11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 7 - argument is without m erit. The c lear meaningof the provision is that a guara ntor’s oblig ations under the terms of the loan documents do not chang e in the event of a bankruptcy , not that gua rantors a re rele ased f rom the liability provided there in. To rea d the provision as def endants sug g est is counterint uit ive . Ins te a d, the loa

n a g re e me nt and g ua

ra nty c le arl y pr ov ide that a ba nk ru ptc y fi lin g is a

SRE
and that a SRE re nd e rs the de fe nd ants , a s gua ra nto rs , p e rs on a lly

lia ble fo r t he fu ll d e bt. I nt h e s am e a rgu m en t , d ef en d an t s as s er tt h at t h e g u ar an t y ’s s ec t i o n1 0 h ea d i n g, “Unc onditional Char acte r of Oblig ations of Guar antor,” su pra , should not have impacted the dist rict
c ourt ’s fi nd ingre late d to thi s is su e , a nd that th e di stric t c ourt

e rr e d b y no t g ivi ngmor e we ig ht t o Kahn’ s aff

idavit in which he stated that he neve r intended to be liable f or the e ntire amount of the debt. Def

endants’ a ssertions are without merit as they do not chang e the c lear

meaningof the g uara nty provision that defe ndants contest as a mbiguous. A g uara

ntor’s oblig ations under se ction 5(b)( i) are not ambiguous. Thus, the district court did not err in finding the same. Def endants a ls o argue that the guara nty ’s def inition of “Guara

nteed Oblig ations,” sec tion 1(b), su pra , is ambiguous. Par

ticularly , defe n d an t s say

that beca use modifiers a

re not used in the clause – “and” or “or ” – the c lause should be r ead a s one sentence and to mean that it is ambiguous wh e the r d e fe nd ants are lia ble fo r the fu ll amo un t of the de bt. De fe nd ants ’ c la im i s w ith ou t me ri t. Whether the de finition is read as one sentenc e or a s two independe nt sentence s, it is clear that de fe nd ants are lia

ble fo r t he fu ll d e bt i n th e c a se of a SRE , whi c h de fe nd ants c on c e de c on ve rt s th e ir debt obligations from non-re course to rec ourse. See Appellants’ B rief, at p. 5. Thus, the district court did not err in finding a lack of ambiguity related t o the def inition of the gua

ranty ’s “Gua

rante ed Obligations” term.11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 8 - 2. Bankruptcy

Petition Next, defenda

nts argue that an una

uthorized bankruptcy

filing c an n o t constitute a SRE. Part ic ula rl y , d e fe nd ants say

tha t the SRE c la

us e wa s no t tr ig g e re d be c a us e Ka hn did no t c on se nt t o the ba nk ru ptc y pe tit ion fi le d by Rho de hame l and , thu s, wi tho ut ma jor ity c on se nt, un der t he Six Venture s org anizational a nd operating documents, Rhodehamel did not have the a uthority to file the petition, which was late r dismissed. Rely ing on Price v . Gurney , 324 U.S. 100, 10 6 (1 9 4 5), defe ndants argue that bec ause Rhodeha mel did not have the a

uthority to f i l e t h e petiti on, the bankruptc y court did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition. That is, be cause t h e b an k ruptcy petit i o n wa s improperly

filed and he ard, it should be tre ated a s though it neve r happe ned. And be c a us e the ba nk ru ptc y pe tit ion is wh a t 111 De bt is re lying on a s th e SRE that e xpos e d d e fe nd ants to p e r s o n a l l i a

b i l i t y , i f t h e b an kr

u p t c y p e t i t i o n n e v e r h a

p p e n e d , n e i t h e r d i d t h e S R E . T hu s, defe ndants say

they are not liable. As e vid e nc e that th e ba

nk ru ptc y pe tit ion wa s im pr op e r a nd that K ahn

did no t c on se nt, defe ndants proff

er K ahn’s a ffidavit and a

sta tement from the ba

nkruptcy court during111 Debt’s mot ion to g ra nt r e lie f f

ro m th e a

uto matic sta

y hear in g. F ir st, Ka

hn ’s a ff ida vit , o ff e re d w ith defe ndants’ re sponse to 111 Debt’s motion for pa rtial sum m ar y j u dg ment, states that he ha d no kn ow le dg e and did no t con se nt to Rhod e hame l fili ngthe pe tit ion . D ist ri c t Co ur t D oc . 6 1, Exhi bit A, at p. 2. Second, a s previously stated, the bankruptc y

court noted dur ing the hear ing that there w as “some que stion about whether or not [ Rhodehamel] had prop er co rp orate authority to make the filing, [but] ma[de] no finding in this re g ard.” Appellants’ B rief, A ppendix A. The bankruptcy court also noted that Rhodehame l’s improper f iling supported the dismiss al of the pe tition.11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 9 - I n r e s p o n s e , 1 1 1 D e b t s ay s th a t d e f e n d an ts ’ ar g u me n t is mi s p la c e d b e c a u s e the loan
a g re e me nt a

nd g ua ra nty are the g ov e rn ingdo c ume nts to t he pr e se nt m a tte r, no t Six V e ntu re s’ int e rn a l d o c u m e n t s . 1 1 1 D e b ti s c o r r e c tt h a tt h e l o anan d

g u ar an t y d o c u m e n t s , n o tS i x V e ntu re s’ internal doc uments, g overn the prese nt matter. 11 1 D e bt furt

he r ar g ue s tha t all that wa s re qu ir e d und e r the loa n ag re e me nt to tri g g e r a SR E
wa s f or a g uara nt or to co ns e nt t o, a id, so lic it, su pp or t, c oo pe ra

te , c oll ud e in o r f

a il t o c on te st a bankruptc y

petition on behalf of S ix Venture s. Acc ording ly , 111 Debt say s that when Ka hn did not contest the ba

nkruptcy petition, the SR E clause was trig g ere d. The district court ag ree d with 111 Debt, finding “nothing i n the languag e of the Guar anty that require s unanimous consent or approva l of the bankr uptcy by all Guar antors,” a

nd no “provision that provides a sa fe ha

rbor f or a G uara

ntor who cla ims to have objecte d to th at fi l i n g af t er the fac t.” Dist ri ct Court Doc. 102, at p. 11. F urther, the district court found Ka hn’s objection af

ter the bankruptc y

petition was filed to be irr eleva nt, noting that “[n]either Kahn nor McMenamy filed any document or ple ading with the bankruptc y court that contested the filing of that bankruptc y

at any time or that sug g ested that the f iling wa s in any

way improper.” Id. Acc ording to section 10.1 of the loan a g ree ment, “L ender ’s ag ree ment not to pursue per sonal liability of B orrowe r as se t forth above SHAL LBECOME N UL LAND VO I D and sha ll be of no further forc e and e ffe ct, and the D ebt s hall be fully rec ourse to B orrowe r in the eve nt that . . . any condition or eve nt describe d in either Sec tion 8.1(f) or Section 8.1(g )” occur s. A section 8.1(g ) eve nt i n c l u d e s “ an y p e t i t i o nf

o r b an kr u p t c y . . . f

i l e d b y o r a g a i n s t , c o n s e n t e d

t o , o r a c qu i e s c e d

i nb y,11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

Contrary to the district court’s a ssertion, there is a s af e h arbor under se ction 8.1(g ) for 1 petitions filed without the consent of the bor rowe r o r a guara

ntor; that protection simply does not apply here . The loan ag ree ment provides that if “ such petition or proc eedingwas involuntary and not consented to by

Bor rowe r or a

Guar antor” it is a section 8.1(g ) event of def ault “only upon the same not beingdischarg ed, stay ed or dismissed within 60 day s.” Ther e is no repr ieve f or the defe ndants under this provision, howeve r, beca use the bankruptc y petition wa s dismiss ed af ter the 60-day period. Def endants a lso argue that the district cour t erre d in gr anting partial summary judgme nt 2 be c a us e 11 1 D e bt’ s c la im f

or re lie f i s b e y on d th e sc op e of the a me nd e d c omp la int , a nd be c a us e ho ldi ng the de fe nd ants lia ble ba se d on the ba

nk ru ptc y fi lin g vio late s p ub lic po lic y . We se e no me ri t to t he se argume nts and

a ff ir m f or the re a so ns g ive n b y

the dis tr ic t c ourt
. - 10 - Bor rowe r or a

Guar antor.” Thus, a s ection 8.1(g ) eve nt occur red w hen Rhodehamel, a guara ntor, fi le d th e ba

nk ru ptc y pe tit ion on be ha lf of Six Ve ntu

re s. I t is no answer that Kahn, a nother guara

ntor, may have c ontested the filing . The ba nkruptcy filing r ender s the debt fully rec ourse unde r sec tion 10.1 if “ any Guarantor c on se nts to, a ids , s oli c its , supports, or otherw ise coope rate s or colludes to ca use . . . or fa ils to contest” the bankr uptcy filing (e mph a sis a dd e d)
. Ag a in, Rho de hame l, a Gu ara nto r, fi le d the ba

nk ru ptc y pe tit ion and , t hu s,

“ c on se nt[e d] to , a id[e d], s oli c it[e d], s up po rt [ed] , o r o the rw ise c oo pe rate [d] or c oll ud e [d] to c a

us e . . . or fa il[ ed] to contest” that filing . Under the plain languag e of the loan documents, ther efor e, the debt is fully

rec ourse r eg ardle ss of whether the other g uara ntors—the def

endants—c ontested the b an krup t cy

fi l i n g. 1 T h u s , b e c a

u s e d e f e n d an ts ar e li a

b le u n d e r th e p la in me an in g o f th e lo an a g r e e me n t a nd g ua ra nty , w e a g re e wi th t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on to g ra nt p art ia l summa

ry jud g me nt. 211 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 11 - B. P r oc e dur al C lai m Finally , defe ndants argue that the district court e rre d proce durally by order ing e ntry

of a f inal jud g me nt at th e same tim e it g ra nte d 1 11 De bt’ s mo tio n to a me nd the fi rs t ame nd e d c omp la int
. Def endants a ssert that g rantingthe motion nulli fied the f inal judgme nt. Def

endants further

asser t
e rr or on the g ro un d th a t th e y

ne ve r h a d a

n o pp or tun ity to r e sp on d to the a me nd e d c omp la int . T hu s, they say the judg ment was improper ly enter ed. 111 Debt re sponds that it proper ly moved t o amend the first amende d complaint under F ed. R. C iv. P. 1 5. 11 1 D e bt a lso argue s th a t th e a me ndme nt w a s p ro per becaus e the pr e se nt c la im ag ainst defe ndants, the g uara nty claim, was not a ffe cted by the amendme nt. A d istri c t c ourt ’s de c isi on to e nte r f ina l ju dg me nt o n s ome , b ut n ot a ll, c lai ms pu rsu ant to Rule 54(b) should be g iven “substantial def ere nce.” Curtis s-W

right Corp. v. Gene ral Ele c. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10 ( 1 9 8 0 )
. F u rth e r , th is Co u rt h a s h e ld th a t “ ana me n dme n t p u r s u an t t o Ru le 1 5 is the appropr iate wa

y to dispose of few er tha

n all claims ag ainst a def

endant.” Ba k

e r v . Ci ty of D e tro it , 21 7 F e d
. A p p x. 4 9 1 , 4 9 6 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. F i n a l l y , R u l e 1 5 ( a ) p r o v i d e s t h a t“ l e a v e s h a l l b e f re e ly g iven when justice so require s,” Mi lle r v . A dm ini strati v e Of

fic e of C ou rts , 4 48 F .3 d 8 87 , 8 98 (6 th Cir. 2006), and this Court ha s listed severa l fac tors to consider in orde r to dec ide whethe r to allow
an ame ndment: “the dela

y in filing, the la ck of notice to the opposing pa rty , bad fa ith by

the moving party , repe ated failure to c ure defic iencies by previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party , and futility

of ame ndment.” Id. (q u o t i n g Perkins v. American Elec. Power Fuel Suppl y, Inc

. , 246 F.3d 593, 605 ( 6th Cir. 2001)).11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 12 - As an initial matter, bec ause the motion to am en d the first ame nded complaint re moved claims unrelated to the bre ach of g uara nty claim made a g ainst defe ndants, defe ndants did not suffer undue pre judice fr om the amendment a nd defe ndants have not shown t h at 111 Debt acted in bad faith in moving f

or the amendment. Thus, under the Fe dera l Rules of C ivil Procedur e, the district court did not err

by g ranting111 Debt’s motion to amend the f irst am en d ed co m p laint and in the same orde r direc ting e ntry of a f inal judgme nt. Fur ther, de fenda

nts’ relianc e on B&

H Me dical, LLC

v. ABP Adm in., Inc. , 52 6 F .3 d 2 57 (6 th Cir. 2008) , is misplace d. Related to this issue of amendinga complaint, B& H M e dic al stands for the proposition that a par ty cannot a rg ue cla ims on a p p ea l that it previously remove d by

filing a n
am en ded complaint. Id. at 2 6 8 & n
. 8 (q u o t i n g Drak e v . Ci ty of D e tro it , N o . 0 6

- 1 8 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 WL 482283, at *2 (6th C i r. Fe b
. 21, 2008) (stating that a prior “ complaint is a nullity , beca use an amende d complaint superc edes a ll prior complaints”). Her e, 111 De bt did not move to remove the gu ar anty claim ag ainst defe ndants and is not attempting to use the re moved claims or their respe ctive ar g uments ag ainst them. Rather, 111 De bt asked the district court to remove unnece ssary claims bec ause they wer e no longe r beingpursued by 111 Debt, i.e., they wer e resolved. I t f ollows, the n, that when the district c ourt g rante d 111 Debt’s motion, it simply

allowed r emoval of the resolved claims and orde red e ntry of a f inal judgme nt
a g a ins t de fe nd ants in or de r fo r the re ma ini ng c la im ag a ins t the m als o to be re so lve d. I n o the r w or ds , the first ame nded complaint was not nullified, but w as amende d such that all matters other than the g uara nty claim wer e in ef

fec t withdrawn, a

nd beca me fun c tus off

ic io
. See Nisbet v. Van T uyl , 224 F.2d 66, 71 ( 7th Cir. 1955) (“An a mended pleadi n g ordinarily superse des the prior

pleading . The11 1 D e bt A c qu isi tio ns Ho ldi ng s, LLC v . S

ix Ve ntu re s Ltd
. , e t al

. No. 09-4436

- 13 - prior plea ding is in ef

fec t withdrawn a s to al l matters not restate d in the amende d pleading , and be c ome s fun c tus off

ic io .” ) ( citation omitted). Moreove r, t he guar anty claim re mained intact a nd the f i n a l j u d g m e n ta g a i n s td e f e n d an t s a s t o t h a tc l a i m w a s p r o p e r l y o r d e r e d an d e n t e r e d
. A c c o r d i n g l y, de fe nd ants ’ a

rgume nt t o th e c on tr ary

is w ith ou t me ri t. IV . C ON CL USI ON For all of the a

bove re asons, we AF F IRM the district court’s g rant of pa rtial summary jud g me nt a

nd or de r d ir e c tin g a

fi na l ju dg me nt a g a ins t de fe nd ants
.