Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

G&S Livingston Realty, Inc. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

United States District Court, Third Circuit

November 4, 2013

G&S LIVINGSTON REALTY, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant.

OPINION

SUSAN D. WIGENTON, District Judge.

Before the Court are the following motions: 1) plaintiff G&S Livingston Realty, Inc.'s ("Plaintiff" or "G&S") motion for entry of judgment ("Motion for Entry of Judgment") pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58 and Local Civil Rules 79.4 and 58.1; and 2) defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc.'s ("Defendant" or "CVS") cross-motion to reopen discovery ("Cross-Motion").

This matter is decided without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.

For the reasons set forth below, this Court will enter judgment for Plaintiff, but the specific amount will require additional assessment. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and Defendant's Cross-Motion for limited discovery on damages will be DENIED.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

As this Court writes primarily for the parties, only a brief procedural history will be provided.

This action stems from a lease G&S entered into with lessee Linens N Things, Inc. ("Linens") for retail space in the Livingston Retail Center (the "Lease"). (Compl. ¶ 6.) In connection with the Lease, Melville Corporation, Linens's parent company, executed a guaranty that required it to pay rent and other sums due under the Lease to G&S if Linens defaulted (the "Guaranty"). ( Id. ¶¶ 9, 11-12.) CVS, as successor to Melville, assumed the Guaranty. ( Id. ¶¶ 10-11.)

Following Linens's default on the Lease in May 2008, in January 2010, G&S brought suit against CVS. ( Id. ¶¶ 14-16.) G&S alleged, inter alia, that CVS breached the Guaranty, and sought declaratory judgment that CVS was in material breach of the Guaranty and responsible for all accruing payments and expenses due under the Lease. ( Id. ¶¶ 27-28, 33-35.) CVS filed counterclaims against G&S seeking declaratory relief and argued that it was entitled to proceed under a co-tenancy provision of the Lease. (Dkt. No. 7.) Fact discovery closed in June 2011, after which G&S and CVS both moved for summary judgment.[1] (Dkt. Nos. 39-40.) On December 22, 2011, this Court entered an order ("December 22, 2011 Order") denying G&S's motion and granted in part and denied in part CVS's motion for summary judgment finding that the Lease was not terminated in 2008, and that CVS was allowed to exercise Linens's rights under the co-tenancy provision and opt for Alternative Rent. (Dkt. No. 56.) On January 13, 2012, G&S appealed. (Dkt. No. 59.)

The Third Circuit reversed the December 22, 2011 Order and remanded this action after determining that the CVS could not exercise Linens's rights under the co-tenancy provision to opt for Alternative Rent and terminate the Lease. (Dkt. No. 61.) By mandate filed December 26, 2012, the Third Circuit vacated the December 22, 2011 Order and remanded the action "for entry of judgment against, and assessment of amounts due and owing from, CVS" ("December 26, 2012 Mandate"). (Dkt. No. 62 at 8.)

On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Entry of Judgment pursuant to the mandate from the Third Circuit. (Dkt. No. 73.) On March 22, 2013, Defendant filed the Cross-Motion to reopen discovery. (Dkt. No. 76.) Both motions were opposed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 is a procedural rule for entering judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. The Rule states that "judgment[s] must be set out in a separate document" with an exception for "order[s] disposing of a motion: (1) for judgment under Rule 50(b); (2) to amend or make findings under Rule 52(b); (3) for attorney's fees under Rule 54; (4) for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, under Rule 59; or (5) for relief under Rule 60." Id. § 58(a). The Rule further sets out when judgment may be entered without the court's direction and when the court's approval is required. Id. § 58(b). Additionally, Rule 58 states the time of entry for when a judgment should be entered "in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.