Hassan Chahadeh, M.D. v. Jacinto Medical Group, P.A. and Paradise Marketing and Consulting, L. P.
2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2169
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Hassan Chahadeh personally guaranteed three promissory notes made by Jacinto Medical Group, P.A. and Paradise Marketing & Consulting, L.P. (two guaranty agreements: one covering Jacinto note, one covering two Paradise notes).
- The guaranties were expressed as unconditional "guaranty of payment," waiving collection defenses and stating the guarantor’s obligation would not be affected by the debtor’s bankruptcy.
- University General Health System Inc. and University General Hospital, L.P. (UGH) defaulted; UGH filed Chapter 11 and appellees filed proofs of claim in bankruptcy.
- Appellees demanded payment from Chahadeh; he refused. Appellees sued him in state court for breach of the guaranties and moved for traditional summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment awarding a money judgment for principal and per‑diem interest; Chahadeh appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction (bankruptcy exclusivity) and disputed damages calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bankruptcy court has exclusive jurisdiction over appellees’ claims against Chahadeh | Appellees: state court has concurrent jurisdiction; suit is outside exclusive bankruptcy core | Chahadeh: filing of proof of claim in bankruptcy vested exclusive jurisdiction in bankruptcy court over related claims | State court had jurisdiction; bankruptcy exclusivity limited to the bankruptcy petition/allowance/disallowance of claims, not suits against non‑debtor guarantors |
| Whether appellees’ summary‑judgment evidence conclusively established liability | Appellees: guaranties, promissory notes, demand letter, admissions, and CEO affidavit established (1) existence of guaranties, (2) UGH default, (3) demand, (4) nonpayment, and stated amounts and per‑diem interest | Chahadeh: affidavit amounts conflict with Paradise bankruptcy claim creating fact issue on damages | Evidence conclusively established breach and specified amounts; discrepancy explained by non‑guaranteed profit‑sharing claim, so no fact issue on damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (procedural standard for de novo summary judgment review)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (movant’s burden on traditional summary judgment)
- Cox v. Lerman, 949 S.W.2d 527 (distinguishing guaranty of payment from guaranty of collection)
- Republic Nat’l Bank of Dallas v. Nw. Nat’l Bank of Fort Worth, 578 S.W.2d 109 (general guaranty principles)
- In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90 (bankruptcy court jurisdiction—core proceedings)
- Matter of Brady, 936 F.2d 212 (state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over matters "related to" bankruptcy)
- Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42 (bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction to allow or disallow claims)
- GATX Aircraft Corp. v. M/V Courtney Leigh, 768 F.2d 711 (legal inequity in barring creditor suits against guarantors because debtor filed bankruptcy)