Alberts, Trustee v. Tuft et al

O:\Andrew Fausett Temp Docs\Decisions with Related Orders\Alberts v. Tuft (In re Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp., I)\GSCH_Alberts v. Tuft_motion to dismiss_SAC_order amending decision.wpd
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.
PAUL TUFT, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 02-02250
(Chapter 11)
(Jointly Administered)
Adversary Proceeding No.
04-10459
ORDER AMENDING DECISION REGARDING
MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
It is
ORDERED that the court’s Decision Regarding Motions to
Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (D.E. No. 251, entered September
21, 2006) is AMENDED as set forth in the pages that follow.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: All counsel of record.
The ORDER AMENDING DECISION REGARDING MOTIONS TO
DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT below is hereby
signed. Dated: September 26, 2006.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 04-10459 Doc 255 Filed 09/26/06 Entered 09/26/06 15:21:59 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 3

73 	Count XIII is not limited to conveyances avoided under
§ 548, but Counts IX and XI already seek recovery of conveyances
avoided under § 544. 	Accordingly, Count XIII will be dismissed
as surplusage to the extent it addresses conveyances avoided
under § 544.
74 	Alberts’s claims for equitable subordination and
disallowance under § 502(d) are unaffected by the affirmative
defense of in pari delicto; however, objections to claims in
Counts XIV and XV based solely on the Law Firm Defendants’
alleged malpractice will be dismissed.
90
XIII, 73 and the objections in Counts XIV and XV based on § 502(d)
in conjunction with § 548 will be dismissed in their entirety,
but counts VIII-XI (seeking avoidance and recovery under 11
U.S.C. §§ 544 and 550) will not be dismissed. 	Counts XIV-XV will
not be dismissed to the extent of Alberts’s equitable
subordination claims and § 502(d) objections to claims based on
avoidability under § 544. 74
III
In light of the foregoing analysis, the court will grant in
part and deny in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. 	As
Count I is the only count levied against Susan Engelhard and the
court has concluded that it fails to state a claim against her,
the court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its
entirety with respect to her. 	Similarly, the court will dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint with respect to Rebecca Parrett
based on the terms of the Settlement Agreement between the
debtors and the NCFE Entities. 	Finally, the court will stay
Count II with respect to Melvin Redman unless and until Alberts
Case 04-10459 Doc 255 Filed 09/26/06 Entered 09/26/06 15:21:59 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 3

91	O:\Andrew Fausett Temp Docs\Decisions with Related Orders\Alberts v. Tuft (In re Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp., I)\GSCH_Alberts v. Tuft_motion to dismiss_SAC_decision_final.wpd
successfully moves for relief from the automatic stay in Redman’s
bankruptcy case.
An order follows.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: All counsel of record.
Case 04-10459 Doc 255 Filed 09/26/06 Entered 09/26/06 15:21:59 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 3