Alberts, Trustee v. Universal Care

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
GREATER SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL CORP., I, et al.,
Debtors.
____________________________
SAM J. ALBERTS, TRUSTEE FOR
THE DCHC LIQUIDATING TRUST,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSAL CARE,INC.
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 02-02250
(Chapter 11)
(Jointly Administered)
Adversary Proceeding No.
04-10266
DECISION REGARDING CONVERTED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The defendant Universal Care, Inc. (“Universal Care”) seeks
dismissal of this adversary proceeding pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6) (as incorporated by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012). 	The
plaintiff Sam J. Alberts, trustee for the DCHC Liquidating Trust,
vigorously opposes Universal Care’s motion, but his chances of
success are nil in light of the court’s Decision Regarding Cross-
Motions for Summary Judgment on Proposed Stipulation and Order
The decision below is hereby signed. Dated:
September 25, 2006.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 04-10266 Doc 38 Filed 09/25/06 Entered 09/25/06 13:20:12 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

2
Resolving Cure Claim of Universal Care, Inc. entered in the
debtors’ main bankruptcy case (D.E. No. 2896, entered May 11,
2006). 	As the court explained in that decision:
The remaining issue in this dispute is
whether Universal Care’s counter-party to the
[Large Group Subscriber Agreement (“GSA”)] as
it existed in 2002 (“the 2002 GSA”) was
Pacifica of the Valley Corporation (to whose
rights, as pertinent here, the Reorganized
Debtor has succeeded) or an entity known as
Pacific Optima, LLC.
That issue is of significance because
Alberts is prosecuting an adversary
proceeding, Adv. Pro. No. 04-10266, against
Universal Care seeking recovery of an alleged
$793,955.11 in preferential transfers made in
2002. 	If those transfers were made in
payment of obligations under the GSA sought
to be assumed here, approval of the
Stipulation, and the resulting assumption of
the GSA will, consistent with the decision in
Alberts v. Humana Health Plan, Inc., 327 B.R.
26 (Bankr. D.D.C.[]2005) [(“Humana”)],
terminate the right of Alberts to pursue
recovery of the transfers.[]. . . For the
reasons stated in this opinion, I conclude
that Pacifica of the Valley Corporation was a
party to the 2002 GSA, and I will grant
Universal Care and the Reorganized Debtors’
motion for summary judgment and approve their
proposed Stipulation accordingly.
(Dec’n at 3-4).
Based upon the factual finding made by the court in its
prior Decision and the legal conclusions drawn by the court in
Humana, it cannot be disputed that Alberts has no right to pursue
Case 04-10266 Doc 38 Filed 09/25/06 Entered 09/25/06 13:20:12 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

1 	The court dismissed as moot the Fifth Omnibus Objection
of the DCHC Liquidating Trust insofar as it referred to the
claims of Universal Care for the same reason (D.E. No. 2947,
entered June 21, 2006).
3	O:\Andrew Fausett Temp Docs\Decisions with Related Orders\Alberts v. Universal Care, Inc. (In re Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Corp. I)\decision_summary judgment_Alberts v. Universal Care.wpd
the claims set forth in his complaint. 1 	Alberts has not
convinced the court that either decision should be reconsidered
despite having the opportunity to do so at the pre-trial hearing
in this adversary proceeding (see D.E. No. 37, entered June 20,
2006). 	Accordingly, the court will treat Universal Care’s motion
to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and grant the motion
at this time.
A judgment follows.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: All counsel of record.
Case 04-10266 Doc 38 Filed 09/25/06 Entered 09/25/06 13:20:12 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3