What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: Reinhart litigation overview of Old Met and Grove judgments
Select a size
Reinhart Foodservice Vs. Old Met BBQ, LLC and Grove BBQ, LLC Litigation Overview
Reinhart Foodservice was the food distributor for Old Met BBQ, LLC (d/b/a Famous Daves – Mall of America) and Grove BBQ, LLC (d/b/a Famous Daves – Cottage Grove)
FDA closed at the Mall of America on 2/23/2015
FDA closed at the Cottage Grove location on 3/13/15
On 5/11/15 Reinharts lawyer Evan Niefeld filed a Summons & Complaint dated March 30, 2015, Affidavits of Service and Affidavit of No Answer with HCDC – separate files for each entity – Old Met file #27-CV-15-8570 and Grove BBQ file #27-CV-15-8540 (copies of entire file for each action is attached)
The 5/11/15 cover letter asked HCDC to file the lawsuit and enter an administrative default judgment per MCP Rule 55.01 (1)
The Affidavit of No Answer and Affidavit of Service stated that Plaintiff incurred Sheriff Fees/private process service fees on both actions
Default Judgment was entered against Grove BBQ on 5/13/15 and against Old Met on 5/29/15 – not sure why one was entered quicker than the other
DEFENDANTS DISPUTE THE AMOUNT JUDGEMENT WAS ENTERED FOR AND DISPUTES THAT DEFENDANTS EVER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE ACTIONS
On June 1, 2015 Plaintiff prepared a Summons & Complaint with Timothy Buffham and Patricia Buffham as Defendants in an attempt to collect the Old Met and Grove judgments from the alleged Personal Guaranty of the Buffhams
On June 8, 2015 Plaintiff mailed to the Buffhams the Summons & Complaint against the Buffhams, Publication Summons and Plaintiffs Affidavit in Support of Service by Publication with 2 Affidavits of Metro Legal attached stating that Metro Legal was unable to locate either of the Buffhams and that they further checked drivers license records, etc. to attempt to find the Buffhams – no personal service was ever obtained by Plaintiff – nor are Buffhams aware of any attempt at personal service – the Summons & Complaint was filed with the Court on July 7, 2015
Buffhams responded by using the Self Help center and filed their Answers dated July 7, 2015 (separate for Timothy and Patricia) by serving Plaintiffs lawyer a copy by mail stating that they knew nothing about a judgement against Old Met and Grove BBQ and that they were never personally served pursuant to Rule 4 of MCP and that a Motion to Vacate the Grove and Old Met judgments would be filed
Buffhams never heard anything more about the personal action - they even went down to Hennepin County Records on July 7, 2015 to see if anything else was filed - until the law firm of Heller & Thyen on July 14,2015 (received by Buffhams on July 20) sent a marketing piece to the Buffhams residence stating that Reinhart Foodservice had obtained a personal judgment against them for $96,156.09 – a huge shock!
On July 31, 2015 Buffhams, with the help of the Self Help Center prepared and served on Plaintiffs lawyer a Motion to Vacate Judgement (against them personally) arguing that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the Buffham personal judgment because they were not personally served pursuant to MCP Rule 4 (used a 2008 Mn. Supreme Court Case as basis for Buffhams argument)
Hearing on the Motion to Vacate on October 8, 2015 – Judge did not like the Pro Se on the Buffhams part and was very rude during the hearing – she let the Plaintiff talk on for 10 minutes and the Buffhams had very little time to talk despite the fact that it was their Motion being argued
Buffhams ordered a certified copy of the transcript after the hearing because they sensed that the Judge would rule against them
On 12/28/15 the Judge ruled that the Motion to Vacate was stayed until an evidentiary hearing was held and suggested the Parties schedule it through her Clerk – her Memorandum attached to the Order was not flattering and not factual
On January 3 or 4th, 2016 the Judge’s Clerk called the Buffhams and stated that the Plaintiff was going to stipulate to the Vacation of the Judgment and offered his opinion that this was “good for us” – he wanted to know if we were ok with the Stipulation and we said “yes” knowing that this was not the end of Reinhart
On January 6, 2016 Judgement was vacated and on January 8, 2016 a Summary Judgment Motion was scheduled for 3/3/16
Given that the Buffhams defense is the lack of service in the Old Met and Grove actions and their dispute of the amounts owed and the Courts requirement that corporations be represented by Counsel, Buffhams are looking to now vacate the Old Met and Grove judgments (and haven’t until now due to the amount of money that lawyers have quoted us for corporate representation).
Our thought is that if the vacation action is underway then Buffhams have a genuine material fact dispute to stave off the Summary Judgement – we believe that the Grove judgement is about $11,000 too much and that the Old Met judgement is about $20,000 too much.vit of No Answer and Affidavit of Service stated that Plaintiff incurred Sheriff Fees/private process service fees on both actions
On January 3 or 4th, 2016 the Judge’s Clerk called the Buffhams and stated that the Plaintiff was going to stipulate to the Vacation of the Judgment and offered his opinion that this was “good for us” – he wanted to know if we were ok with the Stipulation and we said “yes” knowing that th