UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PRESIDENTIAL FACILITY, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-12346

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

CHRISTOPHER J. DEBBAS and 

JAMES R. GRIFFITHS, 

Defendants,

and 

GREGORY S. CAMPBELL and

ROBERT PINKAS, 

Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PETER SINATRA, EMERALD PARTNERS V, LP, 

and JETDIRECT AVIATION HOLDINGS, LLC, 

Third-Party Defendants.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER

AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,

in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on February 28, 2012.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Third-Party Defendant Robert Pinkas’s Motion for Stay

2:09-cv-12346-LPZ-MKM Doc # 161 Filed 02/28/12 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 3096
1

Relevant to this motion, the Court has received and reviewed two correspondences from ThirdParty Defendant Emerald Partners V, LP (“Emerald Partners”). These correspondences—received

on January 17, 2012, and February 23, 2012—are available at docket nos. 141, 142, and 157.

2

Due to Illness [dkt 143]. Except for Defendant Gregory Campbell, the relevant parties have fully

briefed the motion.1 The Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in

the parties’ papers such that the decision process would not be significantly aided by oral argument.

Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1 (f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion be

resolved on the briefs submitted, without oral argument. For the following reasons, Defendant

Pinkas’s motion for a stay is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

II. BACKGROUND

This lawsuit involves several financial transactions that ultimately secured a loan made by

Wachovia Bank (“Wachovia”) to an entity known as SJH Capital Partners, LLC (“SJH”). In order

to obtain the Wachovia loan, Plaintiff unconditionally guaranteed Wachovia payment of

$13,000,000 in the event of SJH’s default. Plaintiff’s guarantee was based on a separate guaranty

agreement (the “Agreement”) with Defendants Christopher Debbas, James Griffiths, Gregory

Campbell, Robert Pinkas, and Third-Party Defendant Peter Sinatra (collectively, “the Coguarantors”).

The Co-guarantors guaranteed to reimburse Plaintiff $10,000,000 if Wachovia acted on the

guaranty agreement between Plaintiff and Wachovia. When SJH defaulted on the Wachovia loan,

Wachovia requested that Plaintiff satisfy its obligation to Wachovia. According to Plaintiff, it has

complied. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit seeking reimbursement from Debbas, Griffiths, Campbell,

and Pinkas (“Defendants”) based on the Agreement. 

2:09-cv-12346-LPZ-MKM Doc # 161 Filed 02/28/12 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 3097
3

Approximately 18 months after this action began, Pinkas asserted a third-party claim for

indemnification against the investment partnership (“Emerald Partners”). Pinkas had served as

Emerald Partners’ general partner. Pinkas argues that Emerald Partners is liable for his share under

the Agreement. In response, Emerald Partners asserts that Pinkas was not acting in the interests of

the partnership, essentially spending millions of dollars without authorization. Emerald Partners

denies any liability under the Agreement and has filed counterclaims against Pinkas for breach of

contract and breach of his fiduciary duties. While Emerald Partners’ nominal general partner was

Brantley Management V, LLC, Emerald Partners seeks to recover its damages directly from Pinkas

as the alter-ego of Brantley Management V, LLC, based on Emerald Partners’ belief that it is only

a shell company Pinkas had created. 

Based on Pinkas and Emerald Partners’ representations, minimal discovery has taken place

on the third-party claims due to Pinkas’s health issues. Along with battling several ailments,

including Stage IV non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Pinkas suffered complete kidney failure in late 2011.

On December 14, 2011, the Court ordered the parties to appear for a Final Pre-trial Conference on

Plaintiff’s guaranty claim on February 2, 2012, and issued a scheduling order regarding the

third-party claims between Pinkas and Emerald Partners. On January 7, 2012, Pinkas underwent

kidney and liver transplants. On January 17, 2012, Counsel for Pinkas filed the instant motion

advising the Court of his health and requesting a stay. The Court adjourned the Final Pre-trial

Conference without date. 

On January 27, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause regarding additional evidence

it provided to the Court after the Court had already decided Plaintiff’s motions for summary

judgment. After receipt of Plaintiff’s response to the show-cause order, the Court ordered

2:09-cv-12346-LPZ-MKM Doc # 161 Filed 02/28/12 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 3098
4

Defendants’ to file a response to Plaintiff’s evidence no later than March 8, 2012. Plaintiff then has

until March 22, 2012, to file a reply. Meanwhile, the discovery cut-off date that this Court ordered

regarding the third-party claims is March 12, 2012, along with a dispositive motion cut-off date of

April 2, 2012.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Sixth Circuit precedent, a district court has the inherent power to stay a proceeding.

Ohio Envtl. Council v. United States, Dist. Ct., S.D. Ohio, 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977). The

party requesting a stay must show that there is need to delay the case, and such delay will not cause

harm to the other parties. Id. The district court’s decision to grant or deny a stay is reviewed for

an abuse of discretion. Id.

IV. ANALYSIS

Pinkas urges this Court to stay the case until his health has recovered. At the time this

motion was filed, Pinkas projects he will need at least three months before he again can participate

in this litigation. The parties that filed a response to Pinkas’s motion do not oppose his requested

relief. Plaintiff only requests that the Court grant judgment in favor of it before any stay is entered.

 Additionally, Emerald Partners requests that the Court stay the entire case and, once the stay is

lifted, to provide additional time to complete discovery on the third-party claims.

In reviewing Pinkas’s motion and brief, reply, and the respective response pleadings, the

Court finds it appropriate to grant Pinkas’s request in part. According to Emerald Partners, Pinkas

has not produced necessary documents and has been unable to attend a deposition. Emerald also

2:09-cv-12346-LPZ-MKM Doc # 161 Filed 02/28/12 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 3099
5

expresses that, with a lack of completing even written discovery, Emerald is not capable of abiding

by the Court’s order to exchange witness lists on February 27, 2012. While Pinkas is not in

complete agreement with Emerald’s assertions, it is clear to the Court that minimal discovery has

occurred on the third-party claims. It is also clear that, due to his health, Pinkas is unable to search

for files, respond to discovery requests, or be deposed. The Court therefore stays this case as to the

third-party claims until further order by the Court.

The Court, however, finds that Plaintiff’s guaranty claim against Defendants is at its final

stages and discovery has been completed for some time. As the Court has ordered, Defendants are

currently permitted to file responses to the evidence that Plaintiff has provided the Court. While the

Court acknowledges Pinkas’s health, the Court does not find that his health impairs the process of

his Counsel filing a response to Plaintiff’s evidence to such an extent that a stay is appropriate.

Rather, the remaining Defendants and Plaintiff are entitled to have a resolution determined as to

their liabilities under the Agreement. As such, the Court denies granting Pinkas’s request to stay

to the extent that it would impact Plaintiff’s guaranty claim.

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Third-Party

Defendant Robert Pinkas’s Motion for Stay Due to Illness [dkt 143] is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all discovery and scheduling dates are STAYED with

respect to the third-party claims in this case until the Court orders otherwise. Upon lifting the stay,

the Court will address the parties’ discovery concerns on the third-party claims.

2:09-cv-12346-LPZ-MKM Doc # 161 Filed 02/28/12 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 3100
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Third-Party Defendant Robert Pinkas must provide this

Court with an update as to his health conditions 90 days after the filing of this Order, and every 30

days thereafter, until this Court orders otherwise.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order has no effect on the briefing dates ordered by

this Court in its February 9, 2012, order, or Plaintiff’s guaranty claim at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 28, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on February 28, 2012.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-12346-LPZ-MKM Doc # 161 Filed 02/28/12 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 3101