United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge
lawsuit, Plaintiff Radiance Capital Receivables Eighteen, LLC
seeks payment of the debt of a non-party, from Defendant
Matthew Concannon, an alleged guarantor of the debt.
Concannon moves to dismiss, arguing that the pleadings are
too conclusory to demonstrate standing and fail to state a
claim, and that he has defenses. Doc. 4. The motion is
Farms, LLC took out loans from Premier Bank and executed two
Promissory Notes that were assignable according to their
express language. At the same time, Concannon executed a
written Guaranty covering “payment and
performance” of every current or future debt Providence
Farms owes to Premier Bank, including principal, interest,
and collection costs. Doc. 1-4, p. 1. The Guaranty states
that it was intended “to induce” Premier Bank to
make the loans, was “absolute and unconditional,
” and was assignable without notice to Concannon.
Id., pp. 1 and 3. The Notes matured in January 2010,
but Providence Farms failed to pay the principal and interest
due. As addressed in more detail below, the Notes were
allegedly assigned twice: the first time to CADC/RADC Venture
2011-1, LLC, which sued in state court to recover the amounts
due on the Notes, and the second time to Radiance Capital.
in October 2010, Premier Bank was shut down and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as receiver. In
August 2011, the FDIC executed Allonges to the Notes,
providing for their payment to the order of CADC,
“without recourse and without representation or
warranty…of any kind or nature whatsoever.”
See CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1, LLC v. Providence Farms,
LLC, no. 13BA-CV01366, Circuit Court of Boone County,
Missouri (Verified Stipulation of Facts by Providence Farms,
LLC, filed on 9/24/2014).Radiance Capital pleads that CADC is a
“successor-by-assignment” from the FDIC. Doc. 1,
p. 2, ¶ 5.
April 2013, CADC sued Providence Farms, Concannon, and
another guarantor in state court. The state court entered a
consent judgment in September 2014 in favor of CADC and
against Providence Farms for the amounts still due under the
Notes, plus interest, and dismissed the claims against
Providence Farms with prejudice.
2016, CADC and Radiance Capital executed a Bill of Sale, as
Seller and Buyer, respectively. Doc. 1-3. The document states
that pursuant to the parties' Loan Sale Agreement, CADC:
[D]oes hereby sell, assign and convey to Buyer, its
successors and assigns, all right, title and interest of
Seller in and to those certain loans, judgments or evidences
of debt described in Schedule “A”
attached hereto and made part hereof, including assignment of
all Loan Documents, ….
Id., p. 1 (emphasis in original). The Bill of Sale
also states that it was executed “without recourse,
” “representation or warranty of any kind.”
Id. The second page of the document contains a short
PROVIDENCE FARMS LLC
CADC/RADC VENTURE 2011-1, LLC
Id., p. 2. Radiance Capital pleads that it is a
“successor-by-assignment” from CADC. Doc. 1, p.
2, ¶ 5.
Capital notified Concannon of the default and demanded
payment of all amounts due under the Notes, Guaranty, and
judgment, but Concannon has failed to pay. Therefore,
Radiance alleges, Concannon has breached the Guaranty.
argues that the Complaint should be dismissed because
Radiance Capital's allegations with respect to standing
and the FDIC-to-CADC assignment are legal conclusions and
thus do not satisfy the Iqbal and Twombly
pleading standards, and that Radiance Capital fails to ...