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.

Vision Real Estate Investment Corp. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

January 6, 2020

VISION REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT CORP., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          William L. Campbell, Jr. Judge.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          ALIST AIBJ E. NEWBERN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the Court is Plaintiffs Vision Real Estate Investment Corp., Autumn Assisted Living Partners, Inc., and Michael Hampton's motion to strike Defendant Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency's (MDHA) affirmative defenses. (Doc. No. 106.) MDHA has responded in opposition. (Doc. No. 111.) For the reasons that follow, the plaintiffs' motion to strike will be granted in part and denied in part.

         I. Background

         The Court has discussed the circumstances of this case at length in a prior order. (Doc. No. 94.) Briefly stated, Plaintiffs entered into a series of contracts with Defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metro) concerning the development of a parcel of land in north Nashville known as the Bordeaux Hospital Property. (Doc. No. 45.)

These agreements included an agreement between Autumn Assisted Living (“Autumn”) and Metro whereby Autumn agreed to lease and operate an assisted living facility located on the Bordeaux Hospital Property. Autumn Assisted Living entered into a separate agreement with Metro to lease and eventually purchase the assisted living facility. In January 2017, the Metro Council passed a bill rescinding the Lease Purchase Agreement on grounds that Autumn was not properly operating the facility and had allowed insurance to lapse. While the bill was still pending before the Council, Metro sent Vision a letter terminating the Lease Purchase Agreement citing Autumn's failure to complete the purchase of the facility by the required date and noting that “a number of additional concerns about [the facility's] current operating conditions have come to light, including maintenance of required insurance coverages and regulatory deficiencies identified by the State of Tennessee.” (Doc. No. 45-4).

(Doc. No. 124, PageID# 1112 (alteration in original).)

         Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which is the operative pleading in this action, alleges violations of their procedural and substantive due process rights and their right to equal protection under the United States Constitution and state-law claims for breach of contract, inducement to breach contract, intentional interference with a business relationship, civil conspiracy, equitable estoppel, and fraudulent inducement. (Doc. No. 45.) The Court previously granted in part and denied in part MDHA's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, dismissing Plaintiffs' due process and equal protection claims against MDHA but continuing to exercise jurisdiction over their state-law claims against MDHA while federal claims remain pending against Metro. (Doc. Nos. 94, 95.)

         MDHA answered the second amended complaint, asserting the following six affirmative defenses:

1. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against MDHA upon which relief can be granted.
2. MDHA hereby incorporates by referenced [sic] the affirmative defenses set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12, as applicable.
3. MDHA asserts the doctrine of comparative fault as adopted and recognized in the State of Tennessee.
4. MDHA asserts that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in full or in part, by the application of the doctrine of waiver, estoppel, laches, and/or unclean hands.
5. MDHA asserts that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in full or in part, by the application of any relevant statute of ...

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.