Eastwood Construction Partners, LLC v. Bryant, Jr. et al

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
GREENSBORO DIVISION
In re: 	)
)
James Lawrence Bryant, Jr., 	)
Sharon Renea Bryant, 	) 	Chapter 7
) 	Case No. 25-10147
)
Debtors. 	)
______________________________________ )
Eastwood Construction Partners, 	)
LLC dba Eastwood Homes, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Adv. No. 25-02009
)
James Lawrence Bryant, Jr., 	)
Sharon Renea Bryant, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
______________________________________ )
James Lawrence Bryant, Jr., 	)
Sharon Renea Bryant, 	)
)
Third-party Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Adv. No. 25-02009
)
Clark Stewart, Allen Nason, 	)
James C. Adams, II, Clint Mores, 	)
Jamey Lowdermilk, & Katarina K. Wong, 	)
)
Third-party Defendants. 	)
______________________________________)
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 12th day of January, 2026.
Case 25-02009 Doc 78 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 7

2
ORDER ON DOCUMENT TITLED “DEFENDANTS AMENDED ANSWER TO AMENDED
COMPLAINT AND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM”
This adversary proceeding is before the Court on the document
titled “Defendants Amended Answer to Amended Complaint and Amended
Counterclaim” filed by James Lawrence Bryant, Jr. and Sharon Renea
Bryant (“Defendants”) on January 9, 2026. 	ECF No. 77. 	Defendants
are proceeding pro se.1 	For the reasons stated herein, the Court
will liberally construe this document as (1) a motion for leave to
amend 	Defendants’ 	amended 	answer 	to 	voluntarily 	dismiss
Defendants’ counterclaims; (2) a voluntary dismissal of the third-
party complaint; and (3) a motion to reconsider the Court’s prior
order and opinion denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss as well as
the 	Court’s 	order 	denying 	Defendants’ 	motion 	to 	reconsider 	the
order and opinion denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 	The Court
will 	allow 	Defendants 	seven 	(7) 	days 	from 	entry 	of 	this 	Order 	to
file 	a 	statement 	explaining 	if 	the 	Court 	has 	misinterpreted 	the
filing. 	Any 	time 	within 	which 	Eastwood Construction, 	LLC 	d/b/a
Eastwood 	Homes 	(“Plaintiff”) 	and 	third-party 	defendants 	must
respond 	to 	the 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	amend 	and 	the 	motion 	to
reconsider, 	or 	to 	respond 	to 	the 	counterclaims 	and 	third-party
complaint will be stayed pending further order of the Court.
1 The Court must construe filings by pro se litigant liberally. 	See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
Case 25-02009 Doc 78 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 7

3
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendants filed a voluntary petition under chapter 7 of title
11 	on 	March 	13, 	2025. 	Case 	No. 	25-10147, 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	Plaintiff
commenced 	this 	adversary 	proceeding 	on 	June 	5, 	2025. 	ECF 	No. 	1.
On June 9, 2025, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint as of
right 	under 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	15(a)(1)(B), 	made 	applicable 	by 	Fed.
R. 	Bankr. 	P. 	7015. 	ECF 	No. 	3. 	Plaintiff 	seeks 	a 	declaration 	of
exception to discharge for a debt owed to Plaintiff by Defendants
under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). 	Id. ¶ 47.
On 	August 	29, 	2025, 	Defendants 	moved 	to 	dismiss 	the 	amended
complaint 	for 	failure 	to 	state 	a 	claim 	on 	which 	relief 	can 	be
granted, among other things. 	ECF Nos. 16 & 28. 	The Court held a
hearing 	on 	Defendants’ 	motion 	and 	subsequently 	entered 	an 	order
and opinion denying Defendants’ motion. 	ECF No. 36. 	On November
19, 2025, Defendants filed a motion asking this Court to reconsider
and 	vacate 	its 	order 	and 	opinion 	denying 	Defendants’ 	motion 	to
dismiss, ECF No. 37, which the Court denied on November 21, 2025.
ECF No. 41.
On December 1, 2025, Defendants filed an answer to the amended
complaint. 	ECF 	No. 	45. 	Thereafter, 	on 	December 	4, 	2025,
Defendants filed a document titled “Counterclaims of Defendants,”
ECF No. 47, which the Court liberally construed as an amendment as
of 	right 	to 	Defendants’ 	answer 	to 	the 	amended 	complaint 	to 	add
counterclaims 	under 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	15(a)(1)(A) 	and 	as 	a 	third-
Case 25-02009 Doc 78 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 7

4
party 	complaint 	against 	the 	additional 	named 	entities 	under 	Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	14.2 	ECF 	No. 	54. 	In 	the 	amended 	answer 	and 	third-
party 	complaint, 	Defendants 	assert 	15 	counterclaims 	and 	third-
party 	claims 	against 	six 	additional 	entities, 	including
individuals. 	See ECF No. 47. 	On January 9, 2026, Defendants filed
the document currently before the Court. 	ECF No. 77. 	Defendants
ask 	the 	Court 	to 	determine 	whether 	Plaintiff 	holds 	a 	cognizable
debt that may be excepted from discharge, id. at 3; and state that
they 	assert 	no 	claims 	for 	damages, 	no 	requests 	for 	sanctions, 	no
state 	law 	causes 	of 	action, 	and 	no 	claims 	against 	third 	parties.
Id. at 1.
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) provides that a party
may 	amend 	its 	pleading 	once 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	course. 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ.
P. 15(a)(1). 	A party may amend a pleading for a second time only
with 	the 	opposing 	party’s 	written 	consent 	or 	the 	court’s 	leave.
Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	15(a)(2). 	“The 	court 	should 	freely 	give 	leave
when 	justice 	so 	requires.” 	Id. 	A 	party 	may 	voluntarily 	dismiss
a pleading (including a third-party complaint)3 by filing a notice
of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, 14 and 15 are made applicable to this adversary proceeding
by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007, 7014, and 7015, respectively.
3 	A 	third-party 	complaint 	is 	a 	pleading. 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	7(a)(5), 	made
applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.
Case 25-02009 Doc 78 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 7

5
for summary judgment or by filing a stipulation of dismissal that
is 	signed 	by 	all 	parties 	that 	have 	appeared. 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
41(a)(1)(A), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7041.4
The 	Court 	previously 	has 	determined 	that 	the 	amended
complaint states a claim under § 523(a)(6) for nondischargeability
of 	the 	debt 	owed 	to 	Plaintiff 	by 	Defendants. 	ECF 	No. 	36.5 	The
Court 	likewise 	denied 	Defendants’ 	motion 	to 	reconsider 	this
decision. 	ECF 	No. 	41. 	Therefore, 	the 	Court 	will 	construe
Defendants’ request for a determination of whether Plaintiff holds
a 	cognizable 	debt 	as 	a 	motion 	to 	again 	reconsider 	these 	prior
decisions.
Defendants’ 	have 	previously 	amended 	their 	answer 	once 	as 	a
matter 	of 	course, 	therefore 	the 	Court 	will 	construe 	the 	current
filing as a motion for leave to amend the amended answer to remove
the counterclaims. 	Finally, because no party has filed an answer
to 	or 	motion 	for 	summary 	judgment 	on 	Defendants’ 	third-party
complaint, the Court will construe Defendants’ filing as a notice
of 	voluntary 	dismissal 	of 	the 	third-party 	complaint 	without
prejudice.
4 This dismissal is without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise or the
party has previously dismissed any federal or state court action based on or
including the same claim. 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). 	In the latter event,
the notice operates as an adjudication on the merits and the dismissal is with
prejudice. 	Id.
5 	Section 	523(a)(6) 	excepts 	from 	discharge 	debts 	for 	“willful 	and 	malicious
injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.”
11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
Case 25-02009 Doc 78 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 7

6
NOW, 	THEREFORE, 	IT 	IS 	HEREBY 	ORDERED, 	ADJUDGED, 	and 	DECREED
as follows:
1. 	The 	Court 	has 	liberally 	construed 	Defendants’ 	filing,
ECF No. 77, as (1) a motion for leave to amend Defendants’ amended
answer 	to 	voluntarily 	dismiss 	Defendants’ 	counterclaims; 	(2) 	a
voluntary dismissal of the third-party complaint; and (3) a motion
to 	reconsider 	the 	Court’s 	prior 	order 	and 	opinion 	denying
Defendants’ motion to dismiss as well as the Court’s order denying
Defendants’ 	motion 	to 	reconsider 	the 	order 	and 	opinion 	denying
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
2. 	To the extent that Defendants disagree with the Court’s
interpretation of the document, Defendants must file within seven
(7) 	days 	from 	entry 	of 	this 	Order 	a 	statement 	explaining 	how 	the
Court has misinterpreted the filing.
3. 	Any 	time 	within 	which 	Plaintiff 	and 	third-party
defendants 	must 	respond 	to 	the 	motion 	for 	leave 	to 	amend 	and 	the
motion to reconsider, or to respond to the counterclaims and third-
party complaint is stayed pending further order of the Court.
[END OF DOCUMENT]
Case 25-02009 Doc 78 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 7

7
Parties to be Served
25-02009
John Paul Hughes Cournoyer
U.S. Bankruptcy Administrator 	Via CM/ECF
Jamey M. Lowdermilk
Katarina Kyung Oak Wong
Counsel for Plaintiff/Third Party Defendants 	Via CM/ECF
James Lawrence Bryant, Jr.
5629 Siler Str
Trinity, NC 27370
Sharon Renea Bryant
5629 Siler Str
Trinity, NC 27370
Allen Nason
2857 Westport Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
James Adams, II
Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey Leonard
230 n. Elm St., Ste 2000
Renaissance Plaza
Greensboro, NC 27401
Clint Morse
Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphry & Leonard
230 N. Elm St, Ste. 2000,
Renaissance Plaza
Greensboro, NC 27401
Clark Stewart
2857 Westport Road
Charlotte, NC 28208
Case 25-02009 Doc 78 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 7