UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Lakeview Management, Inc.;

Lakeview Neurorehabilitation

Center, Inc.; and Lakeview

Neurorehab Center Midwest, Inc.,

Plaintiffs

v. Civil No. 07-cv-303-SM

Opinion No. 2010 DNH 013

Care Realty, LLC; and

THCI Company, LLC,

Defendants

O R D E R

The parties’ supplemental requests for additional findings

of fact and rulings of law (documents no. 140 and 141) are

resolved as follows:

Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Requests (document no. 141)

Facts

1. Denied.

2. Denied (while perhaps after expert analysis the documents

can be said to have “demonstrated,” in part, that the

management fees were calculated using GAAP gross revenues,

still, they did not clearly or fairly disclose that

irregularity).

3. Granted to the extent the referenced letter was explicit. 

But THCI previously let Lakeview know that it harbored

concerns about the propriety of Lakeview’s additional rent

calculations under the lease terms.

4. Denied; the issue was ongoing and unresolved, and was not

abandoned.

5. Denied.

Case 1:07-cv-00303-SM Document 175 Filed 01/22/10 Page 1 of 5
6. Granted.

7. Denied.

8. Granted.

9. Granted.

Law

1. Granted.

2. Unnecessary to resolve the issues actually raised in the

litigation.

3. Unnecessary to resolve the issues actually raised in the

litigation.

4. Addressed in the court’s memorandum decision.

5. Addressed in the court’s memorandum decision.

6. Addressed in the court’s memorandum decision.

7. Addressed in the court’s memorandum decision.

Defendants’ Supplemental Requests (document no. 140)

Facts

1. Granted.

2. Granted.

3. Granted.

4. Granted.

5. Granted.

6. Granted.

7. Granted.

8. Granted.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00303-SM Document 175 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 5
9. Granted.

10. Granted to the extent defendants so represent.

11. Granted as a correct statement of the lease terms, but,

defendants have not established what reasonable fees were

“incurred as a result of any lease default,” and plaintiffs

have not been heard on the claimed entitlement.

12. Granted.

13. Granted as an accurate statement of the lease terms.

14. Granted.

15. Denied; the claim was not litigated and is subject to some

doubt given THCI’s conduct.

Law

1. Granted.

2. Granted.

3. Granted.

4. Granted.

5. Granted.

6. Granted.

7. Granted.

8. Granted.

9. Granted.

10. Granted.

11. Granted.

12. Granted.

13. Denied; it is not apparent that the calculation is actually

agreed upon.

3

Case 1:07-cv-00303-SM Document 175 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 5
14. Denied; it is not apparent from the evidence what a proper

calculation would yield.

15. Granted.

16. Denied; it is not apparent that the calculation is agreed

upon.

17. Denied; it is not apparent from the evidence (or an

agreement) that the calculation is correct.

18. Denied (see #17).

19. Denied; it is not apparent from the evidence (or an

agreement) that the calculation is correct.

20. Granted, but see ruling on Request No. 11.

21. Granted.

22. Granted as to future performance, but to the extent this

request raises an issue regarding the current extension

period, the matter was not litigated, and the implied claim

of right is doubtful.

23. Granted.

24. Denied; the issue was not litigated and a ruling is not

necessary to resolve any issue actually raised in this case.

Having resolved all outstanding motions and addressed the

supplemental requests for rulings, it would seem at long last

that final judgment can be entered. Calculation of amounts owed

should require little more than mathematical computation. 

Defendants’ request for ruling with respect to an attorneys’ fees

claim implies other issues, but no motion is pending and no

evidentiary support for the request has been referenced, and

plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to respond with respect to

4

Case 1:07-cv-00303-SM Document 175 Filed 01/22/10 Page 4 of 5
either the merits of such a claim or the reasonableness of the

amount claimed.

The clerk shall schedule a status conference within the next

30 days at which the parties will be expected to either stipulate

to the amounts to be included in a final judgment, or state what

issues they think require additional attention. As noted in the

court’s memorandum decision (document no. 139 at 50-51, n.8):

The precise amount owed is a matter of performing a

series of mathematical calculations. The result ought

to be undisputed. If the parties cannot agree on the

amount due, however, the court will entertain a motion

to reopen the case and resolve the issue, likely by

appointing an expert, or special master, at the

parties’ expense.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

January 22, 2010

cc: Christopher H. M. Carter, Esq.

Daniel M. Deschenes, Esq.

Ovide M. Lamontagne, Esq.

Jonathan M. Shirley, Esq.

Leigh S. Willey, Esq.

5

Case 1:07-cv-00303-SM Document 175 Filed 01/22/10 Page 5 of 5