Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00910-GMS Document 189 Filed 08/01 /2006 Page 1 of 2
Rtcnxxnos, morrow 8. Fmesn
A PROFESSIONAL. A5SDClA`?|DN
ONE nomnev eouans
92.0 Noam Kino Smear
WELMINGTON DELAWARE tooo: Dtnszcr Dam, Neumann
F" I
Danish gmt§;T;;wcescMs mom 55 IJYOO 302:55 EJB l 6
DaFnAwcsscH1@nLF com
Fax: rsoai as l-not
vwvw.nu=.coM
August l, 2006
Via E~Fili1zg
Hon Gregory M. Sleet, U.S.D..I.
United States District Court for the
District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Integrated v. THCI: t}4—9§0 gGMS[
Dear Judge Sleet:
We are the attorneys for plaintiffs and additional counterclaini defendant Abe
Briarwood Corporation (collectively, "Plaintiffs").. We write in response to the letter to you of
even date by Collins .lr Seitz, lr., Esq., representing defendant.
Mr. Seitz’s letter reflects a rnisunderstanding ofPlaintiffs’ position. First:
Plaintiffs have not consented, and do not consent, to defendant’s rnotion which sought to evict
the tenants. We have instead noted that we are prepared to vacate, which would make the
motion academic. Second: As this Court is aware, there is presently under advisement a motion
to remand this removed case to State Court, both because it was improperly removed to begin
with (an issue the Eighth Circuit expressly noted is to be addressed by this Court), and because
the supposed excuse for removal, the pendency of an appeal to this Court from the Banlouptcy
Court, has disappeared. This Court should not, and indeed perhaps may not, enter substantive
orders prior to disposition ofthe motion to remand. Third: lf the Order were to he entered, and
for some technical reason (e_,g,, defendant is not ready to take over), the tenant might not be able
to vacate a particular site by August 3lS`, it should not be facing the I-Iobson’s Choice ofeither
being in contempt of this Court’s Order, orjeopardizing patient care.
Fourth, det`endant’s proposed Order ignores the condition of Plaintiffs’ offer to
vacate, namely that defendant use the cash and receivable proceeds that the Plaintiffs are handing
over to pay payroll and other payables. That should still leave defendant with about $3.5 Million
to apply towards back rent.
The fact that we cannot and do not consent to defendant’s proposed Order does
not mean that we are not willing to enter into a letter agreement with defendant coniinning the
rzrl=1-s04s614»i

Case 1:04-cv-00910-Gl\/IS Document 189 Filed 08/O1/2006 Page 2 of 2
Hon Gregory M. Sleet, U.S.D.J.
August 1, 2006
Page 2
terms of our proposal incorporated in Mr. Lastowskfs letter of July 28. However, we are still
waiting for det’e1tda;1t to announce, at least via a letter to you, if not directly to us, that it accepts
our proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
E éO®\"”“r ’\ »
Daniel J. Delirlartcesclti
DJD:aj
cc: (via e—mail)
Collins J. Seitz, Esq.
Davis S. Sager, Esq.
Michael R. Lastowski, Esq.
Aurora Cassirer, Esq.
R.rr¤.s¤.4z.6¤4-;