OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Citibank, N.A. initiated this action on January 31, 2019. In brief, this case concerns Citibank’s attempts to recover loan payments defendants Douglas Jacobsen and Norman Kravetz are alleged to have guaranteed. Doc. 19. In its operative complaint, Citibank brings claims for breach of contract and attorney’s fees against Defendants. Id. Pending before the Court is Citibank’s motion for summary judgment on both of these claims and Defendants’ affirmative defenses. Doc. 49. For the reasons set forth below, Citibank’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background The following facts are undisputed. Citibank, in each of its respective capacities, is a national banking association. Doc. 57 1. Jacobsen and Kravetz are co-founders of non-party JH Capital Group Holdings, LLC (“Parent”). Id. 2; Doc. 56 at 7; Doc. 58-1 at 35-36. Jacobsen is the sole member of non-party Jacobsen Credit Holdings LLC, which in turn is the sole member of Parent, which in turn is the sole member of non-party JHCG Holdings LLC (“Borrower”), which in turn is the sole member of non-party JH Portfolio Debt Equities LLC (“Servicer”). Doc. 57
4-6; Doc. 58-1 at 188. Until 2019, Parent, Borrower, and Servicer were in the business of purchasing portfolios of consumer and merchant loan obligations at a discount and deploying a network of collection agencies to recover amounts due on accounts. Id. 7. On June 29, 2017, Borrower and Parent entered into a Credit Agreement with Citibank. Id. 8; Doc. 51-1 at 2. The Credit Agreement identifies Citibank as a lender, administrative agent, and collateral agent for purposes of the agreement. Doc. 51-1 at 5, 7, 12. Pursuant to section 2.01 of the Credit Agreement, Citibank advanced a $50 million loan to Borrower. Id. at 21; Doc. 57 15. The Credit Agreement also cross-references other “Loan Documents,” which is defined to include the Security Agreement executed between Borrower and Citibank on the same date. Doc. 51-1 at 13; Doc. 51-2 at 2; Doc. 57
