Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00910-GIVIS Document 186 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 1 of 2
C@?~i §i®l..t§r`i §@‘it’E LGDGE & i—··li§“`fZ Lis?
Q E . .. .. .. .... . ....... AT -- - ···· · ·· ····· ·· · The Nemours Building
N J I U 1007 North Orange Street
13.0. Box 2207
Wilmington D5 EQSQQ
tsozi ees ami
(EGE) ees
Collins J. SBHZ, JF, .e.r.ri- »:· ·`—» { `.=‘==. i
TEL 88S·62?8
FAX (QOQ} 255..4278 ‘irr,Z7"`L*i .:;"¥.?. Q; .5
EMA|[__ ggg§{2@Cb]{g_cOm >=ra.§i`=i`E;" ifi;.} ·~‘-- `
REPLY TO Wilmington Ofnce _=_4 `ill _
my 27, 2096 lalaa / 1//0
vrww.cotn.oorn
VIA ELECTRONIC FlLlNG
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, U.S.D.J’.
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
I. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street- Room 4324
Wilmington, Delaware 19301
Re: integrated Health Services of Cliff Manor v. '1`HCI Company, LLC
Civil Action No. Ofl·~910 (GMS)
Dear Judge Sleet:
This firm represents THC1 Company LLC ("THCI"). Regrettably, 1 ani forced to
respond to Plaintiffs’ recent letter and Motion to Amend Scheduling Order because
Plaintiffs (1) misstate the facts in yet another effort to prevent discovery, and (2) seek to
delay resolution of the core issue in this case — Plaintiffs non—payrnent of rent for more
than a year — by inundating the Court with motions. A conference is warranted to address
Plaintiffs’ conduct.
The Court directed that discovery proceed in this case during two separate
conferences earlier this year (see Docket Nos. 1l9 (1/13/06 Hearing Transcript at l'/~18)
& 139 (2/28/06 Hearing Transcript at 15)) and in a Scheduling Order dated March 24,
2006. (Docket No. K41). Despite such direction, Plaintiffs have not permitted a single
deposition to proceed. Plaintiffs also have sought to delay resolution of TI-lC1’s rnotion
seeking to require Plaintiffs to vacate nine nursing home facilities because Plaintiffs have
not paid any rent since May 2005, currently owe 'THCI more than S 12 million, and have
refused to provide any ofthe contractually mandated reporting regarding the facilities.
Given this Court’s Order confirming Plaintiffs’ lease obligations (Civil Action No. 03—
610, Docket No. 27), Plaintiffs have no defense to "l`HCl’s claims. Rather, they seek to
avoid the consequences of their egregious conduct by moving to remand to state court.

Case 1 :04-cv-00910-GIVIS Document 186 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
lnly 27, 2006
Page 2
Plaintiffs continue their attempt to take advantage of this Courtfs busy docket by
submitting an endless barrage of motions that have nothing to do with their $12 million
default. lY’laintift`s’ contention that THCl is in default of any discovery obligation and that
they conferred with counsel in an atternpt to resolve their concerns is simply incorrect.
THC} joins in Plaintit`t`s’ request for a conference, not because Plaintiffs newest
motion warrants the Court’s consideration, but rather to address Plaintir`r"s’ continuing
refusal to pay rent or vacate nine nursing home facilities.
Thank you for Your Honor’ s consideration.
Respectlully submittedh
{ng { iz;-ti
t i it tr i lt
éf/EJTQQ in \’M&`\f i
ollins J. §§itz, lr. i
(Bar No. 2237)
cc: Michael R. Lastowski, Esq. (via electronic and regular mail)
Daniel I. Delhanceschi, Esq. (via electronic and regular mail)
Aurora Cassirer, Esq. (via electronic and regular mail)
David S. Sager, Esq. (via electronic and regular rnail)