Capital Commc'ns Fed. Credit Union v. Monolith Solar Assocs. LLC

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER   On December 18, 2019, plaintiff KeyBank National Association (“KeyBank” or “plaintiff”) filed this breach of contract action seeking to foreclose on certain secured interests it had obtained against Monolith Solar Associates LLC (“Monolith”), its owners, and several other power companies with common ownership. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have breached each of those agreements and are therefore liable to plaintiff to the tune of $6.1 million. See id. 2. On December 20, 2019, Daniel Scouler (“Scouler” or “the receiver”) was appointed as receiver under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 66 to manage the power companies during the pendency of the foreclosure action. See generally Dkt. 7. At the same time, the Court imposed a stay of all outside litigation against the receivership properties absent express permission. Id. 21; see Dkt. 96, 21 (including same language of stay in updated Second Order Modifying Receivership Order). The stay also prohibited “all…persons…from doing any act or thing whatsoever to interfere with the [r]eceiver in the discharge of [his] duties….” Dkt. 7, 21; Dkt. 96, 21. On December 9, 2016, non-party Gary Hickok (“Hickok”) agreed to lease rooftop space at his business, Gary’s Garage, located at 8A Apollo Drive, Albany, New York 12205, to Monolith so that it could install a solar panel, called a PV system, on his roof. Dkt. 124, 5. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Monolith fell behind on its lease payments, and now owes Hickok $13,737.63. Id. 8. Upon being named receiver, Scouler told Monolith’s lessors, including Hickok, that he needed to have continued access to the company’s PV system at Gary’s Garage, and in exchange promised to resume rent payments beginning in April of 2020. Dkt. 124, 9. Although this would not reimburse the lessors for the rent they were already owed, neither would it interfere with their ability to collect that rent upon the conclusion of the receivership. Id. Although most lessors were satisfied with this arrangement, it would seem that Hickok was not. Dkt. 124,