United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
KRISTEN H. POTTS, Plaintiff,
MARYLAND GAMES, LLC, Defendant.
Charles B. Day, United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Plaintiff's Motion”)(ECF 54). The Court has
reviewed Plaintiff's Motion and the opposition thereto.
No hearing is deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.).
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
Standard for Review
may grant summary judgment, “when the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Felty v. Graves-Humphreys,
818 F.2d 1126, 1128 (4th Cir. 1987). The Court must view
facts and all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party in order to ascertain whether a genuine issue of
material fact exists. Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo
Properties, Inc., 810 F.2d 1282, 1286 (4th Cir. 1987);
Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d
355, 364 (4th Cir. 1985). However, the mere existence of some
disputed facts does not automatically foreclose summary
judgment. Thompson Everett, Inc. v. National Cable
Advertising L.P., 57 F.3d 1317, 1322 (4th Cir. 1995).
“Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary
will not be counted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Rather, the disputed
facts must be “material to an issue necessary for the
proper resolution of the case, ” and “the quality
and quantity of evidence offered to create a question of fact
must be adequate to support a jury verdict.”
Thompson, 57 F.3d at 1323.
burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of fact exists
and that one is entitled to judgment as a matter of law is on
the moving party. Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d
946, 958 (4th Cir. 1984). The ultimate question is whether a
reasonable fact finder could return a verdict for the
non-movant or whether the movant, at trial, would be entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. See,
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327; Shealy v.
Winston, 929 F.2d 1009, 1012 (4th Cir. 1991).
seeks summary judgment on the claim of conversion.
Undisputed Material Facts
Court accepts the undisputed material facts as set forth in
the Joint Statement of the parties.
1. On October 16, 2015, a company called Technology
Exclusive, Inc. (“TE”) executed a promissory note
in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1.5 million
2. Pursuant to the Promissory Note, TE was to make
interest-only monthly payments to Plaintiff for a period of
three years, with the principal sum due and payable on or
before October 16, 2018.
3. The Promissory Note states that TE will be in default if,
among other things, TE failed to pay any amounts due
thereunder within the cure period or if TE breached any term
of condition of the Security Agreement executed
4. To secure the timely payment and performance of its
obligations to Plaintiff, TE executed a Security Agreement
dated October 16, 2015, which granted Plaintiff a first
priority security interest in all of TE's personal
property (the “Collateral”), which is described
with particularity in Section 1 of the Security Agreement as
All of the personal property of the Debtor, wherever located,
and now owned or hereafter acquired, including . . . and, to
the extent not listed above as original collateral, all other
assets, personal property and rights of the Debtor, whether
tangible or intangible, including but not limited to . . .
gaming machines . . . exclusive ...