Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

1 Urban Part. Bank v. St. Regis Det. Part; Case No. 09-10646

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

URBAN PARTNERSHIP BANK, Case No. 09-10646

Plaintiff, Victoria A. Roberts

vs. United States District Judge

ST. REGIS DETROIT PARTNERS, Michael Hluchaniuk

L.L.C., et al., United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants,

vs.

MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT

INSURANCE AGENCY,

Intervenor Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 78)

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff ShoreBank’s motion for

summary judgment on count I of its verified complaint. (Dkt. 78). This case has

been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. (Dkt. 82). Defendants

filed a response to the motion. (Dkt. 83). The response is premised on defendants’

claim that ShoreBank was not the real party in interest. 

On October 19, 2010, this Court entered the stipulated order for substitution

of plaintiff (Dkt. 95), by which Urban Partnership Bank was substituted into this

matter as plaintiff, and is the real party in interest. Defendants’ objections are now
Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

2 Urban Part. Bank v. St. Regis Det. Part; Case No. 09-10646

moot. A hearing on this matter was held on November 3, 2010, pursuant to notice. 

(Dkt. 94). The undersigned has reviewed the pleadings, and is otherwise fully

advised in the premises. The undersigned RECOMMENDS that plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment be GRANTED and that plaintiff be AWARDED

the following relief:

1. Judgment in favor of plaintiff Urban Partnership Bank and against

defendant Herbert J. Strather Trust u/a/d March 17, 1986 as amended and restated,

jointly and severally with defendant Herbert J. Strather, individually, as set forth in

paragraph 2 below, in the amount of Four Million and 00/100 Dollars

($4,000,000.00) with applicable interest to accrue from and after the date of this

judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and plaintiff will have full rights of

execution.

2. Judgment in favor of plaintiff Urban Partnership Bank and against

defendant Herbert J. Strather, individually, jointly and severally with defendant

Herbert J. Strather Trust u/a/d March 17, 1986 as amended and restated, as set

forth in paragraph 1 above, in the amount of Four Million and 00/100 Dollars

($4,000,000.00) with applicable interest to accrue from and after the date of this

judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and plaintiff will have full rights of

execution.

3. Judgment in favor of plaintiff Urban Partnership Bank and against
Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

3 Urban Part. Bank v. St. Regis Det. Part; Case No. 09-10646

defendant Wilco Associates, L.L.C., jointly and severally with defendant Shirley

Wilson-Johnson, individually, as set forth in paragraph 4 below, in the amount of

Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) with applicable

interest to accrue from and after the date of this judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1961, and plaintiff will have full rights of execution. Defendant Wilco

Associates, LLC is given credit in the amount of $100,000.00 for payment made as

of August 4, 2010, leaving a balance due pursuant to this Judgment of $200,000

with applicable interest to accrue. 

4. Judgment in favor of plaintiff Urban Partnership Bank and against

defendant Shirley Wilson-Johnson, individually, jointly and severally with

defendant Wilco Associates, L.L.C. as set forth in paragraph 3 above, in the

amount of Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000.00) with

applicable interest to accrue from and after the date of this judgment pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1961, and plaintiff will have full rights of execution. Defendant Shirley

Wilson-Johnson is given credit in the amount of $100,000.00 for payment made as

of August 4, 2010, leaving a balance pursuant to this Judgment of $200,000 with

applicable interest to accrue. 

6. The Receiver will remain in place, and the terms of the Consent Order

Appointing Receiver will remain in full force and effect, unless modified by this

Court.
Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

4 Urban Part. Bank v. St. Regis Det. Part; Case No. 09-10646

7. If the Court enters an Order granting the recommended relief, such

order will not resolve all issues in this case and the case would remain open.

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule

72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right

of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some

issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a

party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health

and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule

72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,”

etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the

objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). 

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the

same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection
Report and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

5 Urban Part. Bank v. St. Regis Det. Part; Case No. 09-10646

No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may

rule without awaiting the response.

s/Michael Hluchaniuk 

Date: November 3, 2010 Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 3, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to the following: C. David Bargamian, Deanne L. Bonner, Earle I.

Erman, David H. Freedman, Leo J. Gibson, Juandisha M. Harris, Thomas C.

Johnson, William C. Rousch, Julie B. Teicher, and Douglas C. Bernstein, and I

certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the paper to the following

non-ECF participant(s): AlixPartners, LLP, 2000 Town Center, 24th Floor,

Southfield, MI 48075.

s/Tammy Hallwood 

Case Manager

(810) 341-7887

tammy_hallwood@mied.uscourts.gov