RailWorks Corporation

1:01-bk-64463Mdb2 dic 2004

Testo completo

P. 1569 2nd omnibus objn.
pp. 2578, 2579, 2584, 2586,
2587, 2589, 2590, 2603,
2607, 2611 - mns. for sj
1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BALTIMORE DIVISION
In re: *
RAILWORKS CORPORATION, et al., * Case No. 01-64463 through 01-64485
Debtors. Chapter 11
*
Jointly Administered Under
* Case No. 01-64463-SD
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEBTORS’ MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS OBJECTIONS TO CLAIM NUMBERS: 1474, 3104,
3105, 313, 240, 3129, 1960, 2213, 148, 2014, AND 1322.
Facts
Debtors filed their Second Omnibus Objection to Allowance of Certain Claims on June 10,
2003, in which Debtors requested that certain claims that had been paid in full or overstated be
reduced accordingly. Along with their omnibus objection, Debtors filed an affidavit from Robert
Herschenfeld, the Vice President of L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc., one of the debtors under the
SO ORDERED
Date signed December 02, 2004
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 1 of 8
2
joint reorganization. Mr. Herschenfeld asserts in his affidavit that he has personal knowledge of the
amount owing to each Claimant based on his review of the books of the Debtors. Subsequently, on
October 11, 2004 and October 27, 2004, Debtors filed several motions for summary judgment with
respect to various claims listed in the omnibus objection to claim motion. In support of the motions for
summary judgment, Debtors again provide an affidavit from Mr. Herschenfeld, and in addition, provide
a copy of the “Vendor History-Invoice Detail” for each claimant. Each affidavit asserts that after a
review of the books and records of Debtors, that the amount owing is either zero or some reduced
amount. Additionally, the affidavit further states that “after further review of the accounts payable
history” for the individual claimant, the Debtors have satisfied, or reduced, the amount owing. Based
on this evidence, the accounts payable history for the claimant and the affidavit, the Debtors move for
summary judgment. None of the Claimants at issue filed a response to either the objection to claim or
to the motion for summary judgment.
Summary Judgment Standard
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056, summary
judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See also Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed.2d 202 (1986). A material
fact is one that might affect the outcome of the suit, see id., 477 U.S. at 248; a genuine issue of material
fact exists where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 2 of 8
3
party.” Id. at 248-49. In determining the facts for summary judgment purposes, the court may rely on
affidavits made with personal knowledge that set forth specific facts otherwise admissible in evidence
and sworn or certified copies of papers attached to such affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The
evidence provided establishes that there is no genuine dispute of material fact with regard to the
following claims, and that Debtors are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Claimant Claim
Number
Amount listed
on Proof of
Claim
Allowed
Claim
Amount
Collins Electrical
Systems, Inc.,
1474 $311,122.48 $0
Nelcorp COS of Md,
Inc.
3105
3104
$371,196.77
$120,593.00
$11,183.32
Dixie Construction Co,
Inc.
1322 $124,510.00 $0
Prude Construction
Corp.,
1960 $304,456.33 $22,559.17
C.J. Hood Company 3129 $129,000.00 $0
Kalwall Corporation 313 $286,350.00 $0
H.J Ross Assoc., Inc. 2213 $151,253.00 $34,403.19
Seaboard Systems
Co., Inc.
240 $117,663.51 $73,415.08
Glenridge Fabricators 148 $640,051.00 $60,473.56
Safetran Systems
Corp.
2014 $697,171.85 $11,395.00
Objection to Claims
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 3 of 8
4
A proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. In re
Merry Go Round, 241 B.R. 124, 134 (Bankr. D. Md. 1999) (citing Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f); 11
U.S.C. § 502(a)); In re Friedman, 436 F. Supp. 234, 237 (D. Md. 1977). In order to overcome the
presumptive validity, the objecting party “must produce evidence equal in probative force to the proof
of claim.” In re Merry Go Round, 241 B.R. at 134 (relying on In re Gates, 214 B.R. 467, 472 (Bankr.
D. Md. 1997)). Once this burden of production has been met, “the burden of going forward shifts to
the claimant, who must prove the validity of its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
Here, the claimants listed above filed proofs of claim that established the presumptive validity of
the debt and the amount actually owing. Claimants Collins Electrical Systems, Inc., Nelcorp COS of
Md, Inc., Safetran Systems Corp., Seaboard Systems Co., Inc., H.J. Ross Associates, Inc., Glenridge
Fabricators, Inc., and Dixie Construction Co, Inc. provided copies of invoices to establish the amount
of debt owing. Claimants, Prude Construction Corp. and Kalwall Construction, submitted only the
proof of claim itself with its debt listed, and Claimant C.J. Hood Company simply provided a letter
stating the amount owed, but did not provide invoices or other evidence. In its motions for summary
judgment, Debtors submitted the invoice detail reflecting accounts payable history for each claimant,
establishing that each of these Claimants have been paid in full, or that the amount of debt owing has
been reduced. This sufficiently meets the burden of producing evidence of equal probative force with
regard to each claimant’s proof of claim. Therefore, the burden having shifted back to the Claimants,
each would be required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the amount actually owing and
due. Because none of the Claimants filed a response to either the objection to claim or the motion for
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 4 of 8
5
summary judgment, the Debtor has established that there is no genuine dispute of material fact with
regard to the amount owing to each claimant, and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
It is, therefore, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland,
ORDERED, that Debtor’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted with respect to the
following claims: 1474, 3104, 3105, 313, 240, 3129, 1960, 2213, 148, 2014, and 1322; and it is
further
ORDERED, that the allowed amount of each claim is set forth below:
Claimant Claim
Number
Allowed
Claim
Amount
Collins Electrical
Systems, Inc.,
1474 $0
Nelcorp COS of Md,
Inc.
3105
3104
$11,183.32
Dixie Construction Co,
Inc.
1322 $0
Prude Construction
Corp.,
1960 $22,559.17
C.J. Hood Company 3129 $0
Kalwall Corporation 313 $0
H.J Ross Assoc., Inc. 2213 $34,403.19
Seaboard Systems Co.,
Inc.
240 $73,415.08
Glenridge Fabricators 148 $60,473.56
Safetran Systems Corp. 2014 $11,395.00
End of Order
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 5 of 8
6
cc: Joel I. Sher, Esquire
Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler
36 S. Charles Street
Suite 2000
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Zvi Guttman, Litigation Trustee
Law Offices of Zvi Guttman, P.A.
P.O. Box 32308
Baltimore, Maryland 21282
J. Daniel Vorsteg, Esquire
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP
Seven St Paul Street
Suite 1400
Baltimore, MD 21202
Office of the U.S. Trustee
300 West Pratt Street
Suite 350
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Collins Electrical Systems, Inc.,
c/o Gregory P. Olsen, Controller
4990 North Highway 169
New Hope, MN 55428
Nelcorp COS of Md, Inc.
c/o Thomas O'Toole, Esquire
9693 Gerwig Lane 1-S
Columbia, MD 21046
Kalwall Corporation
c/o David O. Fogarty, Credit Manager
1111 Candia Road
Manchester, NH 03105
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 6 of 8
7
C.J. Hood Company
c/o Cynthia J. Hood, President
10 Hillcrest Lane
Old Greenwich, CT 06870
Prude Construction Corp.
c/o Jose A. Aquino, Esquire
Ross & Cohen, LLP
711 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
H.J Ross Assoc., Inc.
c/o Desiree Calas Johnson, Esquire
Jordan E. Bublick, P.A.
11645 Biscayne Boulevard, #208
Miami, Florida 33181
Seaboard Systems Co., Inc.
c/o Brian J. Baljoin, Treasurer
40 Pond Park Road
Hingham, MA 02043-4371
Glenridge Fabricators
Albert Putre, President
c/o Lazer, Aptheker, Feldman,
Rosella & Yedid, P.C.
225 Old Country Road
Melville, NY 11747-2712
Safetran Systems Corp.
c/o Douglas A. Datt
Gavett and Datt, P.C.
15850 Crabbs Branch Way
Suite 180
Rockville, MD 20855
Dixie Construction Co, Inc.
c/o Howard G. Goldberg
260 Hopewell Road
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 7 of 8
8
Churchville, MD 21028
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 8 of 8

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page1of8
SO ORDERED

Date signed December 02, 2004

Lip tig
E. STEPHEN DERBY

U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
BALTIMORE DIVISION

Inre *

RAILWORKS CORPORATION, et al., * Case No. 01-64463 through 01-64485
Debtors. Chapter 11

Jointly Administered Under
* Case No. 01-64463-SD

k k k k k k k k k k k k k

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEBTORS’ MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS OBJ ECTIONS TO CLAIM NUMBERS: 1474, 3104,
3106, 3 3129 2213, 148, 2014, AND 1322.

Facts
Debtors filed their Second Omnibus Objection to Allowance of Certain Claims on June 10,
2008, in which Debtors requested that certain claims that had been paid in full or overstated be
reduced accordingly. Along with their omnibus objection, Debtors filed an affidavit from Robert

Herschenfeld, the Vice President of L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc., one of the debtors under the

P. 1569 2nd omnibus objn.
pp. 2578, 2579, 2584, 2586,
2987, 2589, 2590, 2603,
2607, 2611 - mns. for sj

2
joint reorganization. Mr. Herschenfeld asserts in his affidavit that he has personal knowledge of the
amount owing to each Claimant based on his review of the books of the Debtors. Subsequently, on
October 11, 2004 and October 27, 2004, Debtors filed several motions for summary judgment with
respect to various claims listed in the omnibus objection to claim motion. In support of the motions for
summary judgment, Debtors again provide an affidavit from Mr. Herschenfeld, and in addition, provide
a copy of the “Vendor History-Invoice Detail” for each claimant. Each affidavit asserts that after a
review of the books and records of Debtors, that the amount owing is either zero or some reduced
amount. Additionally, the affidavit further states that “after further review of the accounts payable
history” for the individual claimant, the Debtors have satisfied, or reduced, the amount owing. Based
on this evidence, the accounts payable history for the claimant and the affidavit, the Debtors move for
summary judgment. None of the Claimants at issue filed a response to either the objection to claim or
to the motion for summary judgment.
Summary Judgment Standard
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056, summary
judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See also Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed.2d 202 (1986). A material
fact is one that might affect the outcome of the suit, see id., 477 U.S. at 248; a genuine issue of material
fact exists where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 2 of 8

3
party.” Id. at 248-49. In determining the facts for summary judgment purposes, the court may rely on
affidavits made with personal knowledge that set forth specific facts otherwise admissible in evidence
and sworn or certified copies of papers attached to such affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). The
evidence provided establishes that there is no genuine dispute of material fact with regard to the
following claims, and that Debtors are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Claimant Claim
Number
Amount listed
on Proof of
Claim
Allowed
Claim
Amount
Collins Electrical
Systems, Inc.,
1474 $311,122.48 $0
Nelcorp COS of Md,
Inc.
3105
3104
$371,196.77
$120,593.00
$11,183.32
Dixie Construction Co,
Inc.
1322 $124,510.00 $0
Prude Construction
Corp.,
1960 $304,456.33 $22,559.17
C.J. Hood Company 3129 $129,000.00 $0
Kalwall Corporation 313 $286,350.00 $0
H.J Ross Assoc., Inc. 2213 $151,253.00 $34,403.19
Seaboard Systems
Co., Inc.
240 $117,663.51 $73,415.08
Glenridge Fabricators 148 $640,051.00 $60,473.56
Safetran Systems
Corp.
2014 $697,171.85 $11,395.00
Objection to Claims
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 3 of 8

4
A proof of claim constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. In re
Merry Go Round, 241 B.R. 124, 134 (Bankr. D. Md. 1999) (citing Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f); 11
U.S.C. § 502(a)); In re Friedman, 436 F. Supp. 234, 237 (D. Md. 1977). In order to overcome the
presumptive validity, the objecting party “must produce evidence equal in probative force to the proof
of claim.” In re Merry Go Round, 241 B.R. at 134 (relying on In re Gates, 214 B.R. 467, 472 (Bankr.
D. Md. 1997)). Once this burden of production has been met, “the burden of going forward shifts to
the claimant, who must prove the validity of its claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.
Here, the claimants listed above filed proofs of claim that established the presumptive validity of
the debt and the amount actually owing. Claimants Collins Electrical Systems, Inc., Nelcorp COS of
Md, Inc., Safetran Systems Corp., Seaboard Systems Co., Inc., H.J. Ross Associates, Inc., Glenridge
Fabricators, Inc., and Dixie Construction Co, Inc. provided copies of invoices to establish the amount
of debt owing. Claimants, Prude Construction Corp. and Kalwall Construction, submitted only the
proof of claim itself with its debt listed, and Claimant C.J. Hood Company simply provided a letter
stating the amount owed, but did not provide invoices or other evidence. In its motions for summary
judgment, Debtors submitted the invoice detail reflecting accounts payable history for each claimant,
establishing that each of these Claimants have been paid in full, or that the amount of debt owing has
been reduced. This sufficiently meets the burden of producing evidence of equal probative force with
regard to each claimant’s proof of claim. Therefore, the burden having shifted back to the Claimants,
each would be required to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the amount actually owing and
due. Because none of the Claimants filed a response to either the objection to claim or the motion for
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 4 of 8

5
summary judgment, the Debtor has established that there is no genuine dispute of material fact with
regard to the amount owing to each claimant, and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
It is, therefore, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland,
ORDERED, that Debtor’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted with respect to the
following claims: 1474, 3104, 3105, 313, 240, 3129, 1960, 2213, 148, 2014, and 1322; and it is
further
ORDERED, that the allowed amount of each claim is set forth below:
Claimant Claim
Number
Allowed
Claim
Amount
Collins Electrical
Systems, Inc.,
1474 $0
Nelcorp COS of Md,
Inc.
3105
3104
$11,183.32
Dixie Construction Co,
Inc.
1322 $0
Prude Construction
Corp.,
1960 $22,559.17
C.J. Hood Company 3129 $0
Kalwall Corporation 313 $0
H.J Ross Assoc., Inc. 2213 $34,403.19
Seaboard Systems Co.,
Inc.
240 $73,415.08
Glenridge Fabricators 148 $60,473.56
Safetran Systems Corp. 2014 $11,395.00
End of Order
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 5 of 8

6
cc: Joel I. Sher, Esquire
Shapiro Sher Guinot & Sandler
36 S. Charles Street
Suite 2000
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Zvi Guttman, Litigation Trustee
Law Offices of Zvi Guttman, P.A.
P.O. Box 32308
Baltimore, Maryland 21282
J. Daniel Vorsteg, Esquire
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, LLP
Seven St Paul Street
Suite 1400
Baltimore, MD 21202
Office of the U.S. Trustee
300 West Pratt Street
Suite 350
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Collins Electrical Systems, Inc.,
c/o Gregory P. Olsen, Controller
4990 North Highway 169
New Hope, MN 55428
Nelcorp COS of Md, Inc.
c/o Thomas O'Toole, Esquire
9693 Gerwig Lane 1-S
Columbia, MD 21046
Kalwall Corporation
c/o David O. Fogarty, Credit Manager
1111 Candia Road
Manchester, NH 03105
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 6 of 8

7
C.J. Hood Company
c/o Cynthia J. Hood, President
10 Hillcrest Lane
Old Greenwich, CT 06870
Prude Construction Corp.
c/o Jose A. Aquino, Esquire
Ross & Cohen, LLP
711 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017
H.J Ross Assoc., Inc.
c/o Desiree Calas Johnson, Esquire
Jordan E. Bublick, P.A.
11645 Biscayne Boulevard, #208
Miami, Florida 33181
Seaboard Systems Co., Inc.
c/o Brian J. Baljoin, Treasurer
40 Pond Park Road
Hingham, MA 02043-4371
Glenridge Fabricators
Albert Putre, President
c/o Lazer, Aptheker, Feldman,
Rosella & Yedid, P.C.
225 Old Country Road
Melville, NY 11747-2712
Safetran Systems Corp.
c/o Douglas A. Datt
Gavett and Datt, P.C.
15850 Crabbs Branch Way
Suite 180
Rockville, MD 20855
Dixie Construction Co, Inc.
c/o Howard G. Goldberg
260 Hopewell Road
Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 7 of 8

Case 01-64463 Doc 2633 Filed 12/02/04 Page 8 of 8
Churchville, MD 21028
8

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.