Case gwz Doc 3979 Entered 10/21/11 16:45:12 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Transcription

1 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page of Paul S. Aronzon (CA SBN 8878) Thomas R. Kreller (CA SBN 69) Robert C. Shenfeld (CA SBN 88) MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP 60 South Figueroa Street, 0th Floor Los Angeles, California 9007 Telephone: () Facsimile: () Laury M. Macauley (NV SBN 4) Dawn M. Cica (NV SBN ) LEWIS AND ROCA LLP 50 West Liberty Street, Suite 40 Reno, Nevada 8950 Telephone: (775) Facsimile: (775) 8-99 lmacauley@lrlaw.com; dcica@lrlaw.com Counsel for SCI Debtors and Subsidiary Debtors In re: STATION CASINOS, INC., et al., Debtors and Debtors in Possession. Affects all debtors listed in footnote. Local Counsel for SCI Debtors and Subsidiary Debtors UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Chapter Case No. BK Jointly Administered BK through BK , BK-0-508, BK--588 and BK--590 through BK--59 and BR -570 STATUS REPORT AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OMNIBUS OBJECTIONS TO BE HEARD OCTOBER 8, 0 Hearing Date: October 8, 0 Hearing Time: :00 p.m. Place: 00 Booth Street Reno, NV The debtors in these jointly administered chapter cases are: (i) Station Casinos, Inc. ( SCI ); Northern NV Acquisitions, LLC; Reno Land Holdings, LLC; River Central, LLC; Tropicana Station, LLC; FCP Holding, Inc.; FCP Voteco, LLC; Fertitta Partners LLC; FCP MezzCo Parent, LLC; FCP MezzCo Parent Sub, LLC; FCP MezzCo Borrower VII, LLC; FCP MezzCo Borrower VI, LLC; FCP MezzCo Borrower V, LLC; FCP MezzCo Borrower IV, LLC; FCP MezzCo Borrower III, LLC; FCP MezzCo Borrower II, LLC; FCP MezzCo Borrower I, LLC; and FCP PropCo, LLC (collectively, the SCI Debtors ), (ii) Auburn Development, LLC; Boulder Station, Inc.; Centerline Holdings, LLC; Charleston Station, LLC; CV HoldCo, LLC; Durango Station, Inc.; Fiesta Station, Inc.; Fresno Land Acquisitions, LLC; Gold Rush Station, LLC; Green Valley Station, Inc.; GV Ranch Station, Inc.; Inspirada Station, LLC; Lake Mead Station, Inc.; LML Station, LLC; Magic Star Station, LLC; Palace Station Hotel & Casino, Inc.; Past Enterprises, Inc.; Rancho Station, LLC; Santa Fe Station, Inc.; SC Durango Development LLC; Sonoma Land Holdings, LLC; Station Holdings, Inc.; STN Aviation, Inc.; Sunset Station, Inc.; Texas Station, LLC; Town Center Station, LLC; Tropicana Acquisitions, LLC; Tropicana Station, Inc. and Vista Holdings, LLC (collectively, the Subsidiary Debtors ), (iii) Aliante Gaming, LLC, Aliante Holding, LLC, and Aliante Station, LLC (collectively, the Aliante Debtors ), and (iv) Green Valley Ranch Gaming, LLC ( GVR ). # This Status Report and Reply affects: the SCI Debtors and the Subsidiary Debtors.

2 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page of TO THE HONORABLE GREGG W. ZIVE, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE, THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, AND ALL PARTIES IN INTEREST:. This status report and reply relates to the following omnibus objections filed and served by the SCI Debtors and the Subsidiary Debtors to be heard by the Court on October 8, 0: Sixth Omnibus Objection of SCI to Certain Administrative Claims (the Sixth SCI Debtor Omnibus Objection ) [Docket No. 64], filed and served on July 6, 0; Seventh Omnibus Objection of SCI to Purported Note Claims Filed as Administrative Expense Claims (the Seventh SCI Debtor Omnibus Objection ) [Docket No. 875], filed and served on September, 0; 4 First Omnibus Objection of Subsidiary Debtors to Certain Personal Injury Claims Filed as Administrative Claims (the First Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection ) [Docket No. 87], filed and served on September, 0; 5 Subsidiary Debtors Second Omnibus Objection (A) Disputing Tort Claims and (B) for an Order Lifting the Automatic Stay with Respect to Tort Claims (the Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection ) [Docket No. 888], filed and served on September 7, 0; See also Notice of Sixth Omnibus Objection of SCI to Certain Administrative Claims [Docket No. 700] and Certificate of Service of Jenna M. Convoy [Docket No. 68], which demonstrate proper notice and service of the Sixth SCI Debtor Omnibus Objection. 4 See also Notice of Seventh Omnibus Objection of SCI to Certain Administrative Claims [Docket No. 876] and Certificate of Service of Jenna M. Convoy [Docket No. 899], which demonstrate proper notice and service of the Seventh SCI Debtor Omnibus Objection. 5 See also Notice of First Omnibus Objection of Subsidiary Debtors to Certain Personal Injury Claims Filed as Administrative Expense Claims [Docket No. 874] and Certificate of Service of Jenna M. Convoy [Docket No. 899], which demonstrate proper notice and service of the First Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. 6 See also Notice of Subsidiary Debtors Omnibus Claim Objections, Related Response Deadline and Hearing on Omnibus Objections [Docket No. 89] and Certificate of Service of Andres A. Estrada Regarding Omnibus Objections Filed and Served on September 7, 0 [Docket No. 908], which demonstrate proper notice and service of the Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. #

3 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page of Subsidiary Debtors Third Omnibus Objection for an Order Disallowing: (I) Late-Filed Claims, (II) Duplicate Claims, and (III) Superseded Claims (the Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection ) [Docket No. 889], filed and served on September 7, 0; 7 Subsidiary Debtors Fourth Omnibus Objection for an Order Disallowing Previously Satisfied Claims (the Fourth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection ) [Docket No. 890], filed and served on September 7, 0; 8 Subsidiary Debtors Fifth Omnibus Objection for an Order Disallowing No Liability Claims (the Fifth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection ) [Docket No. 89], filed and served on September 7, 0; (collectively, the Omnibus Objections ). A. No Responses to Sixth and Seventh SCI Debtor Omnibus Objections or First Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. The SCI Debtors and the Subsidiary Debtors received no responses to the Sixth SCI Debtor Omnibus Objection, the Seventh SCI Debtor Omnibus Objection, or the First Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. Accordingly, the SCI Debtors request that the Court enter the proposed orders, sustaining each of these omnibus objections. B. Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection (Dispute Tort Claims/Lift Stay). The Subsidiary Debtors received a number of responses to the Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. 7 See also Notice of Subsidiary Debtors Omnibus Claim Objections, Related Response Deadline and Hearing on Omnibus Objections [Docket No. 89] and Certificate of Service of Andres A. Estrada Regarding Omnibus Objections Filed and Served on September 7, 0 [Docket No. 908], which demonstrate proper notice and service of the Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. 8 See also Notice of Subsidiary Debtors Omnibus Claim Objections, Related Response Deadline and Hearing on Omnibus Objections [Docket No. 89] and Certificate of Service of Andres A. Estrada Regarding Omnibus Objections Filed and Served on September 7, 0 [Docket No. 908], which demonstrate proper notice and service of the Fourth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. 9 See also Notice of Subsidiary Debtors Omnibus Claim Objections, Related Response Deadline and Hearing on Omnibus Objections [Docket No. 89] and Certificate of Service of Andres A. Estrada Regarding Omnibus Objections Filed and Served on September 7, 0 [Docket No. 908], which demonstrate proper notice and service of the F Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. #

4 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 4 of 9 4. First, the Subsidiary Debtors received responses from Kemberly Sotirakis [Docket No. 96] 0 and (informally) from Donna Sampayan. Both Sotirakis and Sampayan are party to so ordered stipulations with certain of the Subsidiary Debtors, which the parties agree govern the disposition of their claim. Accordingly, the Subsidiary Debtors have agreed with Sotirakis and Sampayan to remove them from the proposed order on the Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection, thereby resolving their responses. 5. Second, the Subsidiary Debtors received responses from Randolph Windom [Docket No. 98], Jamikia Hines [Docket No. 945], 4 Carol Schritter et al. [Docket No. 96], 5 and Martha Roldan [Docket No. 967], 6 which do not oppose the relief sought in the Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection, but rather support the relief requested, namely that the Subsidiary Debtors dispute their Tort Claims and request that the Court lift the automatic stay to allow their Tort Claims to be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Subsidiary Debtors request that the Court enter the proposed order on the Second Subsidiary Omnibus Objection with these claim included. 6. Third, the Subsidiary Debtors received responses from Keshonda McAlpin [Docket No. 946], Carol Andrews [Docket No. 947], and Alicia Valdivia [Docket No. 948], each of whom recently filed proofs of claim against Station Casinos, Inc. rather than the Subsidiary Debtors. Accordingly, these claimants are not listed in the proposed order on the Second Subsidiary Debtors Omnibus Objection, and the Subsidiary Debtors therefore request that the Court disregard these responses and enter the proposed order See Charleston Station, LLC, Claim No. 8. See Santa Fe Station, Inc., Claim No. 4. See Stipulated Order Between Subsidiary Debtor Charleston Station, LLC and Kemberly L. Sotirakis [Docket No. 65] and Order Approving Stipulation Consenting to Relief from Stay Pursuant to U.S.C. 6 with Respect to Santa Fe Station, Inc. and Donna Sampayan [Docket No. 84]. See Station Holdings, Inc., Claim No See Santa Fe Station, Inc., Claim No.. 5 See Sunset Station, Inc., Claim Nos. 7, 8, and 9. 6 See Lake Mead Station, Inc., Claim No. 6. #

5 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 5 of C. Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection (Late-Filed, Duplicate, or Superseded) 7. The Subsidiary Debtors received a number of responses to the Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection, each of which relate to whether a late-filed proof of claim should be disallowed, and none of which present any compelling reason for the Court to deny the Subsidiary Debtors requested relief. The Court s analysis of whether a late-filed proof of claim is allowable is governed by Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(), which provides that a bankruptcy court, in its discretion, may deem a late-filed claim timely if the late filing was the result of excusable neglect. See In re Kmart Corp., 8 F.d 709, 7 (7th Cir. 004). The United States Supreme Court has set forth four factors to evaluate whether excusable neglect exists: the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith. See Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Pship., 507 U.S. 80, 95 (99). The creditormovant bears the burden of establishing excusable neglect, and the reason for the delay is the preeminent factor in the Pioneer analysis. Kmart Corp., 8 F.d at 75. The Subsidiary Debtors respectfully request that the Court sustain the Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection as set forth below. (i) Albert and Tonia McCandless 8. On August, 0, Albert and Tonia McCandless (together, the McCandlesses ) filed a motion for leave to file a late claim and lift the automatic stay [Docket No. 86]. On September 7, 0, the Subsidiary Debtors filed the Third Subsidiary Debtor 4 Omnibus Objection, which sought disallowance of the McCandlesses s proof of claim as latefiled. 7 On October 4, 0, Santa Fe Station, Inc. filed an opposition to the McCandlesses s 5 6 motion (the Santa Fe Opposition ) [Docket No. 906]. On October and 4, 0, the McCandlesses filed three substantively similar replies/objections (collectively, the McCandless See Santa Fe Station, Inc., Claim No. 8. #

6 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 6 of Replies ) [Docket Nos. 944, 95, and 954] to the Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection and the Santa Fe Opposition As a procedural matter, the Subsidiary Debtors request that the Court consider all of the above-referenced pleadings in the McCandless matter together as a single calendar item on October 8. The Subsidiary Debtors submit that this is appropriate because each pleading in substance involves the same issue: whether the McCandlesses late-filed proof of claim should be allowed. 0. The Court should deny the McCandlesses s motion and sustain the Third Omnibus Objection with respect to the McCandlesses because they have failed to demonstrate that excusable neglect exists. The Subsidiary Debtors rely upon the Santa Fe Opposition and further submit that the McCanlesses s failure to timely file their proof of claim stems solely from a failure to properly read and respond to the bar date notice approved by this Court and served on claimants in accordance with the bar date order, 9 this failure does not rise to the level of excusable neglect. See Hefta v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re American Classic Voyages Co.), 405 F.d 7, -4 (d Cir. 005) (affirming disallowance of late filed proof of claim where delay was entirely avoidable and within [counsel s] control. Delay was the direct result of the negligence of [counsel] in failing to review the [bar date notice]. ). (ii) Elizabeth Harary. On October 7, 0, Elizabeth Harary filed a response (the Harary Response ) [Docket No. 966] to the Third Subsidiary Debtors Omnibus Objection. The Court should sustain the Third Subsidiary Debtors Omnibus Objection with respect to Harary because, like the McCandlesses, Harary has failed to demonstrate excusable neglect to justify the late filing of her proof of claim. Harary s counsel mistakenly entrusted the filing of the proof of The Subsidiary Debtors note that Docket No. 95 is styled as an objection to the Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. However, the Subsidiary Debtors submit that the substance of Docket No. 95 relates to whether or not the McCandlesses s late filed claim should be allowed, rather than the substance of the Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. 9 See Order Establishing Bar Dates and Related Procedures for Filing Proofs of Claim Against Subsidiary Debtors, Aliante Holding, LLC, Aliante Station, LLC, and GVR and Approving the Form and Manner of Notice Thereof [Docket No. 54]. #

7 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 7 of claim to a paralegal and proceeded to leave his office for an extended period of time. The paralegal failed to file the proof of claim timely. Again, a simple failure to timely respond to the bar date notice does not constitute excusable neglect and, accordingly, the Subsidiary Debtors request that the Court sustain the Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection with respect to Harary. (iii) Martha Roldan. On October 7, 0, Martha Roldan filed a single response [Docket No. 967] to the Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection (addressed in paragraph 6 above) and the Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. Roldan s response is devoid of any facts showing excusable neglect, and, accordingly, the Court should sustain the Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection with respect to Roldan. (iv) Angela Davenport. The Subsidiary Debtors received a letter response from Angela and Joy Davenport (together Davenport ) that does not appear to have been filed with the Court. 0 Subsidiary Debtors attach the Davenport letter as Exhibit (pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 907, the Subsidiary Debtors attach only the first seven pages of the Davenport letter because the remainder of the letter contains personal medical information). The Subsidiary Debtors have decided to remove Davenport s claim from the proposed order on the Third Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection because it appears that Davenport is not represented by counsel, that Davenport filed a timely proof of claim by facsimile, and that Davenport filed her hard copy proof of claim (as required by the bar date order) only one day after the bar date. D. Fourth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection (Previously Satisfied Claims) 4. The Subsidiary Debtors received one response to the Fourth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection, from Southwest Gas Corporation [Docket No. 97]. 0 See Sunset Station, Inc., Claim No.. Davenport will remain subject to the Second Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. See Boulder Station, Inc., Claim No. ; Charleston Station, LLC, Claim No. 9; Durango Station, Inc., Claim No. ; Fiesta Station, Inc., Claim No. ; Gold Rush Station LLC, Claim No. ; Green Valley Ranch Gaming, LLC, Claim No. ; Green Valley Station, Inc., Claim No. ; Lake Mead Station, Inc., Claim No. ; LML Station, LLC, Claim No. ; Magic Star Station, LLC, Claim No. ; Palace Station Hotel & Casino, Inc., Claim No. ; Palace # The The

8 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 8 of Subsidiary Debtors have been in contact with Southwest Gas Corp., and the parties have exchanged information in an effort to consensually resolve Southwest Gas Corp. s response in advance of October 8. In the event that this matter is not resolved by October 8, the parties will request that the Court continue the hearing on Southwest Gas Corp. s claims. E. Fifth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection ( No Liability Claims) 5. The Subsidiary Debtors received three responses to the Fifth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection. First, the Subsidiary Debtors received an informal response from Dell Marketing. Following the submission of supplemental documentation by Dell Marketing, the Subsidiary Debtors have agreed to remove certain of Dell Marketing s claims 4 from the proposed order on the Fifth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection, thereby resolving Dell Marketing s response. 6. Second, on October 9, 0, Evandtec filed a response to the Fifth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection [Docket No. 970]. 5 The Subsidiary Debtors dispute Evandtec s proof of claim and any liability on Evandtec s asserted claim. Because the Evandtec response was filed only nine days before the hearing and because the matter may involve substantive legal and factual issues, the Subsidiary Debtors will request that the Court continue the hearing on the Fifth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection with respect to Evandtec. 7. Third, the Subsidiary Debtors received a letter response (the Blythe Response ) from Bruce Blythe ( Blythe ) on October 9, which does not appear to have been filed with the Court and is attached hereto as Exhibit. On August 6, 0, Blythe tardily filed six proofs of claim against certain of the Subsidiary Debtors that contain no basis for his asserted Station Hotel & Casino, Inc., Claim No. 4; Santa Fe Station, Inc., Claim No. ; Sunset Station, Inc., Claim No. 4; Texas Station, LLC, Claim No. 7; Tropicana Station, Inc., Claim No. ; Vista Holdings, LLC, Claim No.. See Boulder Station, Inc., Claim No. ; Palace Station Hotel & Casino, Inc., Claim No. ; Sunset Station, Inc., Claim No. ; Texas Station, LLC, Claim No The Subsidiary Debtors will remove Claim No. against Palace Station Hotel & Casino, Inc. ($87.78) and Claim No. against Sunset Station, Inc. ($870.). 5 See Palace Station Hotel & Casino, Inc., Claim No. 6. #

9 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 9 of 9 claim or any asserted claim amount. 6 The Subsidiary Debtors reviewed their books and records and found no record of Blythe s asserted claim. The Subsidiary Debtors objected to Blythe s claims as late-filed and as no liability claims. Because the Blythe Response contains no additional information regarding the basis for Blythe s claim or other information that would aid the Subsidiary Debtors in further reviewing their books and records, the Subsidiary Debtors request that the Court sustain the Fifth Subsidiary Debtor Omnibus Objection with respect to Blythe s claims Dated: October, 0 Respectfully submitted, By /s/ Robert C. Shenfeld Paul S. Aronzon, CA State Bar No Thomas R. Kreller, CA State Bar No. 69 Robert C. Shenfeld, CA State Bar No. 88 MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP 60 South Figueroa Street, 0th Floor Los Angeles, California 9007 Counsel for SCI Debtors and Subsidiary Debtors Laury M. Macauley, NV State Bar #4 Dawn M. Cica, NV State Bar # LEWIS AND ROCA LLP 50 W. Liberty Street, Ste. 40 Reno, NV 8950 Local Counsel for SCI Debtors and Subsidiary Debtors See Aliante Station, LLC, Claim No. 7; Auburn Development, LLC, Claim No. ; Boulder Station, Inc., Claim No. 8; Charleston Station, LLC, Claim No. 5; Fiesta Station, Inc., Claim No. ; Green Valley Ranch Gaming, LLC, Claim No. 6. #

10 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 0 of 9 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT #

11 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page of 9

12 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page of 9

13 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page of 9

14 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 4 of 9

15 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 5 of 9

16 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 6 of 9

17 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 7 of 9

18 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 8 of 9 EXHIBIT EXHIBIT #

19 Case gwz Doc 979 Entered 0// 6:45: Page 9 of 9