From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Webster Capital Finance, Inc. v. Chetty Builders, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 20, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5207, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5208, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5209 (E.D. Pa. May. 20, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5207, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5208, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5209.

May 20, 2011


ORDER


AND NOW, this 20th day of May 2011, upon consideration of Defendant Chetty Builders, Inc.'s Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay (Document No. 9, filed November 23, 2010), Plaintiff Webster Capital Finance, Inc., f/k/a Center Capital Corporation's Objection to Defendant Chetty Builders, Inc.'s Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay (Document No. 14, filed December 14, 2010), Defendant Chetty Builders, Inc.'s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay (Document No. 15, filed January 5, 2011), Defendant Carl E. Chetty's Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay (Document No. 8, filed November 23, 2010), Plaintiff Webster Capital Finance, Inc., f/k/a Center Capital Corporation's Objection to Defendant Carl E. Chetty's Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay (Document No. 12, filed December 14, 2010), Defendant Carl E. Chetty's Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay (Document No. 13, filed January 5, 2011), Defendant C.B. Aviation, LLC's Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay (Document No. 9, filed November 23, 2010), Plaintiff Webster Capital Finance, Inc., f/k/a Center Capital Corporation's Objection to Defendant C.B. Aviation, LLC's Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay (Document No. 13, filed December 14, 2010), and Defendant C.B. Aviation LLC's Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay (Document No. 14, January 5, 2011), for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated May 20, 2011, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant Chetty Builders, Inc.'s Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay is DENIED;

2. Defendant Carl E. Chetty's Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay is DENIED; and

3. Defendant C.B. Aviation, LLC's Motion to Open Confessed Judgment and Motion for Stay is DENIED.

The Court having concluded that the amount of the confessed judgments in these three actions must be reformed (i) to reflect a reasonable attorney's fee and (ii) to accurately reflect the amount of defendants Chetty Builders, Inc., Carl E. Chetty, and C.B. Aviation, LLC's remaining indebtedness to plaintiff Webster Capital Finance, Inc., IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a hearing is SCHEDULED for Wednesday, May 25, 2011, at 10:30 a.m., for the limited purpose of receiving evidence and argument on those issues. The Court will thereafter modify the judgments by separate order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT execution on the confessed judgments is STAYED until the Court conducts the hearing to which reference is made in this Order and modifies the confessed judgments to accurately reflect the amount of defendants' remaining indebtedness to Webster Capital Finance, Inc., and to provide for a reasonable attorney's fee.


Summaries of

Webster Capital Finance, Inc. v. Chetty Builders, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 20, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5207, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5208, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5209 (E.D. Pa. May. 20, 2011)
Case details for

Webster Capital Finance, Inc. v. Chetty Builders, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WEBSTER CAPITAL FINANCE, INC., f/k/a CENTER CAPITAL CORPORATION…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: May 20, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5207, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5208, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-5209 (E.D. Pa. May. 20, 2011)

Citing Cases

United States v. Buskell

I will also deny RHS's request for $8,376.45 in attorney's fees. Pennsylvania law "requires that a…

Republic First Bank v. 240/242 Franklin Ave LLC

Pennsylvania law also recognizes "the general principle that contractual damages provisions are unenforceable…