1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARLE STEINBERG, Case No. 09-11836

Plaintiff, HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

United States District Judge

v.

CHARLES YOUNG, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. No. 61]

Plaintiff Earl Steinberg (“Steinberg”) filed this breach of contract and fraudulent transfer

action against Defendants Charles Young, Jr. (“Young”), and numerous business entities owned

in whole or in part by Young (“the Young Entities”), in the Oakland County, Michigan Circuit

Court on April 7, 2009. Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“the Bank”) was allowed to

intervene in the state Court proceedings on April 29, 2009, and on May 13, 2009, the Bank

removed this action. [Doc. No. 1]. 

On September 11, 2009, the Bank filed their instant motion for partial summary judgment

[Doc. No. 61]. The Court declines to hear oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), and

for the reasons below, DENIES the Bank’s motion [Doc. No. 61] WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

In their motion, the Bank argues that they are a secured creditor of the Young Entities,

and are entitled to first priority to any and all assets of those entities before unsecured creditors -

i.e., Steinberg in the instant case - may levy upon the assets of the Young Entities. [Def.’s Br.,

Doc. No. 61, pp.4-5]. Relying primarily upon two affidavits signed by Young, in which Young

2:09-cv-11836-SFC-DAS Doc # 72 Filed 11/18/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 2482
2

states that the Young Entities’ assets are likely insufficient to satisfy the Bank’s security interest

[See May 21, 2009 & September 9, 2009 Affidavits, Def.’s Exs. F, G, Doc. No. 61], the Bank

argues that their security interest is undersecured. [Def.’s Br., Doc. No. 61, p.6]. As such, the

Bank requests partial summary judgment on its behalf. 

As Steinberg argues in his opposition to the Bank’s motion, however, discovery in this

case is ongoing, with a discovery cutoff not scheduled until February of 2010. The Sixth Circuit

has repeatedly looked with disfavor upon district courts granting summary judgment before the

parties have had an opportunity to discover facts sufficient to support their allegations. See, e.g.,

Bushway v. BOP, 1999 WL 1021584, *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 1999)(“Summary judgment should not

ordinarily be granted before discovery is completed.”); Davis v. Runyon, 1998 WL 96558, *2

(6th Cir. Feb. 23, 1998)(“Before ruling on summary judgment motions, a district judge must

afford the parties adequate time for discovery, in light of the circumstances of the case.”); Plott

v. GMC, Packard Elec. Div., 71 F.3d 1190, 1195 (6th Cir. 1995)(“Parties who suffer an adverse

summary judgment may base their appeals on the lack of opportunity to discover evidence

necessary to establish a genuine issue of material fact.”). In the instant case, Steinberg argues

that the Bank, and the Young Entities themselves, have only recently responded to his initial

discovery requests, and that more discovery will be necessary for Steinberg to support his

allegations. [Pl.’s Br., Doc. No. 67, p.13]. 

In light of the absence of objective evidence by which to value the assets of the Young

Entities at this stage in the litigation, and taking into consideration the fact that discovery is not

set to close in this case for approximately three months, the Court holds that the Bank’s instant

motion for summary judgment is premature. As such, the Court DENIES WITHOUT

2:09-cv-11836-SFC-DAS Doc # 72 Filed 11/18/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2483
3

PREJUDICE the Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. No. 61]. The Bank is free

to renew their motion after the close of discovery in this matter should it so desire. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: November 18, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

November 18, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11836-SFC-DAS Doc # 72 Filed 11/18/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 2484