Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. v. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC - 12/3/12

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  December 3, 2012 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 29A02-1201-PL-4. Appellant-Defendant, Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. (Roche), appeals the trial court’s denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment and its judgment in favor of Marsh Supermarkets, LLC (Marsh), awarding damages for Roche’s breach of its sublease with Marsh.
Roche presents this court with three issues:
(1) Whether the trial court erred by denying Roche’s cross-motion for summary judgment by a) declining to find as a matter of law that the language of the sublease granted Roche the right to terminate the sublease if it did not receive a subordination, non-disturbance and attornment agreement (SDNA) by a certain date; or, b) by determining that genuine issues of material fact regarding the parties’ cooperation in obtaining the SNDA precluded summary judgment.   
(2) Whether the trial court erred in granting judgment to Marsh by determining that Roche’s right to terminate the sublease required reasonable prior notice; 2) that Marsh’s delivery of the SNDA to Roche was effective; 3) that Roche had not fulfilled its obligation to cooperate regarding the SNDA; and 4) that Roche had defaulted under the terms of the sublease.
(3) Whether the trial court erred in awarding Marsh damages based upon sublease payments under the entire eighteen year term of the sublease rather than awarding damages in light of Roche’s right of early termination upon the fifth anniversary of the sublease.

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT