Commerce Park Realty, LLC v. Potomac Realty Capital, LLC

          For Plaintiff: Richard G. Riendeau, Esq.; Stephen M. Schonhoff, Esq.; Matthew J. McGowan, Esq.

          For Defendant: Jeffrey S. Brenner, Esq.; William J. Delaney, Esq.; Joseph V. Cavanagh III, Esq.

          DECISION

          TAFT-CARTER, J.

         Before this Court for decision is a motion for summary judgment. The motion, originally filed as a motion to dismiss, was converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 12(c) by this Court by Order dated April 12, 2019. In the motion, Capital Management Systems, Inc. (CMS) asks this Court to grant summary judgment in their favor for all counts against it in the Amended Complaint dated February 21, 2019. Plaintiffs Nicholas E. Cambio and Vincent A. Cambio (collectively, the Non-Receivership Plaintiffs) and Intervener Commerce Park Realty 3, LLC (CPR 3) object to both the above-referenced motions. Jurisdiction is pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 56.

         I

         Facts and Travel

         The Plaintiffs are the Non-Receivership Plaintiffs: Nicholas E. Cambio (N. Cambio) and Vincent A. Cambio (V. Cambio), both residents of Rhode Island, and the Receivership Plaintiff, Commerce Park Realty, LLC (CPR) (all three parties, collectively, the Plaintiffs). Amended Compl. (Compl.) ¶¶ 1, 3-4. Due to the receivership in the associated case PM-2013-0350, Matthew J. McGowan (Receiver) was substituted for CPR in this matter on June 19, 2013. Id. ¶ 2. Defendant CMS is alleged by the Non-Receivership Plaintiffs to be "a general and/or managing partner of Potomac [Realty Capital, LLC]." Id. ¶ 47.

         Beginning in April 2006 until April 2008, the Plaintiffs entered into a number of loans with Potomac Realty Capital, LLC (Potomac). Due to the alleged relationship between Potomac and CMS, the Non-Receivership Plaintiffs allege in the Amended Complaint that CMS is liable for a series of breach of contract, fraud, and RICO violations.

         In the Amended Complaint, the Non-Receivership Plaintiffs allege sixteen counts against CMS (Counts VIII, XI, XIV, XVII, XIX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI). These counts consist of seven counts under the Rhode Island Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) G.L. 1956 §§ 7-15-1, et seq, four counts of breach of contract, four counts of tortious interference with contractual relations, and one count of fraud. CMS moves for summary judgment on all sixteen counts.

         II

         Standard of Review

         "Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact is evident from 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits if any.'" Mruk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527, 532 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Swain v. Estate of Tyre ex rel. Reilly, 57 A.3d 283, 288 (R.I. 2012)). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial justice "views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Mruk, 82 A.3d at 532 (citing Beauregard v. Gouin, 66 A.3d 489, 493 (R.I. 2013)). In order to show it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the '"nonmoving party bears the burden of proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed issue of material fact and cannot rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, mere conclusions or mere legal opinions."' Id. (quoting Daniels v. Fluette, 64 A.3d 302, 304 (R.I. 2013)).

         III

...