Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00910-GMS Document 168 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 1 of 2
····················· TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP ················T
A T TA gl¢E'EI;4LIEll‘I{|`I"§FNI9Nl.[EHlPL A W `
THE CHRYSLER BUILDING
405 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1017*4
·www.tr¤utm¤n:nnG¤r¤.c¤m
TELEPHONE: 212-7*04-.8000
FACSIMILE: 212-704-6288
manet urea ma; m.v¤4sz-tv
amos.alter@trouimansan¤ers.oom DlrectFax: 212-7i14~5914
May 11, 2006 t
Wa E—Filing ’
Hon. Gregory M. Sleet, U.S.D.J.
United States District Court
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street- Room 4324
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Integrated Health v. THCI Co.: O4-910 (GMS)
Dear Judge Sleet: .
We have received a copy of the letter to you of the 10"‘ from Mr. Seitz.
We regret that defendant’s new counsel have retained the practice of their
predecessors of bombarding Chambers with letters. As to the renewed motion and
_ crossmotion for summary judgment, the motions were earlier dismissed without
prejudice to renewal, for reasons of which the Court is aware. Both sides have now
renewed their respective motions and oppositions, based on incorporation by reference
of their earlier papers. How this is an unanticipated or newly burdensome matter is
difficult to understand. However, we will let the motion papers, on this and the other
motions now under advisement before the Court, speak for themselves. We have
already advised the Court of our views as to the proper sequence for decision, and we
will not attempt to use this letter to argue our position once again.
With respect to the checks: The plaintiff tenants paid in April towards April rent
what they had promised they would. Defendant retumed the checks without comment.
The tenants reforwarded the checks. Crossing in the mails., as it were, with this
reforwarding, was defendant’s notice that it was purporting to terminate the Master
Lease. This was a step it had not taken before, although, assuming it was correct to do
so, this was a step it could have taken many months before. Also, defendants counsel
sent a letter stating that they would accept the (reforwarded) checks only on certain
ATLANTA • Home Kcwc • Lcmuom • New Yciuc · Ncxnouc — R.¤.1,e·1¤i—x
RICHMOND • "[`YSONS CORNER • VIRGINIA BEACH • WASHINGTON, D.C.
nsvwonxoi iizissevi zsssssooooss

Case 1 :04-cv-00910-GIVIS Document 168 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 2 of 2 I
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
£,LTM?Tg §A,§Il.§TyP§R¥£Eg-UNI'; A W
Hon. Gregory M. Sleet, U.S.D.J.
May 11., 2006
Page 2
conditions which were not acceptable, including that the monies would be applied other
than towards the April rent. There did not seem any point in tenants paying rent when
the landlord was purporting to tenninate the Iease·, and when the landlord had
announced it would not apply the money towards the rental obligation. The landlord
was therefore advised the checks would be stopped, and it was asked to return the
checks again. Defendant never attempted to negotiate the checks. indeed, since the
tenants were not agreeing to the conditions attempted to be imposed on the second go-
‘round, there is every basis for believing defendant was going to retum the checks a
second time, rather than to deposit them.
lf defendant returns the che·cl and agrees to apply the checks towards the April rent, the checks will be replaced, and
May checks will be issued as well.

P Amos Alter
Cc (via Email): Collins J. Seitz, Esq.
David S. Sager, Esq.
Michael R. Lastowski, Esq.
l
l
l
l
nzisse_i.ooc