Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00073/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00073-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Conversion

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steve Hillis and Diane Hillis, husband

and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Ronald E. Heineman and Barbara L.

Heineman, husband and wife; Barbara L.

Heineman, Trustee of the Year 2002

Revocable Trust Dated August 16, 2002;

and Gregory Bartko, 

Defendants. _________________________________

Ronald E. Heineman and Barbara L.

Heineman, husband and wife; and

Gregory Bartko,

Counter-Plaintiffs and

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

vs.

Steve Hillis and Diane Hillis, husband

and wife; and John Raymond Fox,

Counter-Defendants and

Third-Party Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-73-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Resolve Staffing, Inc., is a Nevada corporation that provided employment staffing and

outsourcing services to various companies. Ronald Heineman is the former chief executive

officer of Resolve Staffing. Gregory Bartko was the corporation’s securities counsel.

Case 2:09-cv-00073-DGC Document 70 Filed 05/14/09 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Hillises’ request for oral argument is denied because the parties have had an

opportunity to fully brief the issues and oral argument would not aid the Court’s decision.

See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729

(9th Cir. 1991); Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).

- 2 -

Steve and Diane Hillis paid $135,000 for 90,000 shares of common stock of Resolve

Staffing in September 2006. They lost that investment when Resolve Staffing went out of

business in early 2008 due to the involuntary foreclosure and sale of its assets by its primary

lender.

The Hillises filed suit against Resolve Staffing and others in Arizona state court in

October 2008. The state court entered a default judgment against Resolve Staffing in the

amount of $810,050. The Hillises cannot collect on that judgment given Resolve Staffing’s

insolvency.

The Hillises filed a complaint against the Heinemans and Bartko in this Court on

January 12, 2009, alleging that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to sell Resolve Staffing

stock in violation of Arizona law. The complaint asserts claims for fraudulent conveyance,

racketeering, and conversion against the Heinemans and a claim for civil conspiracy

against Bartko. Dkt. #1. The Heinemans and Bartko filed counterclaims asserting

misrepresentation and breach of contract claims. Dkt. ##20, 52.

The Hillises have filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Dkt. #49. The motion

has been fully briefed. Dkt. ##66, 69. For reasons that follow, the Court will deny the

motion.1

The Hillises seek summary adjudication of a specific issue: whether, as alleged in

paragraph 6 of the Heinemans’ counterclaim, the Resolve Staffing securities sold to the

Hillises were exempt from registration. See Dkt. ##49 at 1-2, 68 at 3. The Heinemans note

that the Hillises do not address the other twenty-four paragraphs of the counterclaim and

argue that summary judgment is not appropriate because there are a host of disputed factual

and legal issues that must be considered in determining whether the securities sold to the

Hillises qualify as exempt from registration. Dkt. #66.

Case 2:09-cv-00073-DGC Document 70 Filed 05/14/09 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Rule 56(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f summary

judgment is not rendered on the whole action, the court should, to the extent practicable,

determine what material facts are not genuinely at issue.” The Advisory Committee Notes

to Rule 56 make clear that courts have “open-ended discretion to decide whether it is

practicable to determine what facts are not genuinely at issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Advisory

Comm. Notes (2007 Ams.). Courts in this Circuit “‘have found independent requests for

partial summary adjudication to be appropriate where the fact or issue to be adjudicated is

potentially case dispositive.’” Harris Tech. Sales, Inc. v. Eagle Test Sys., Inc., No. 06-

02471-PHX-RCB, 2008 WL 343260, at *9 (D. Ariz. Feb. 5, 2008) (citation omitted).

The Hillises have not shown that the allegation in paragraph 6 of the counterclaim is

dispositive of any claim in the case. Nor have they shown that early resolution of this issue

would save significant time in the litigation or advance settlement of the case. Having

considered the parties’ briefs, the Court concludes that it is not practicable to determine a

single issue at this early stage of the litigation. That issue and others must be decided in a

broader context where, unlike the present motion, the Court has confidence that all relevant

factual and legal issues have been considered and the consequences of the Court’s ruling are

clear. The Court will therefore deny the motion for partial summary judgment. See In re

Neopharm, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 C 2976, 2007 WL 625533, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2007)

(declining to enter order determining facts under Rule 56(d) where doing so “would not

further the litigation and . . . would waste judicial resources”); In re Bridgeston/Firestone,

Inc., No. IP 00-9373-C-B/S, 2002 WL 1011781, at *1 (S.D. Ind. May 13, 2002) (declining

to exercise discretion under Rule 56(d) where the determination sought involved legal

questions and noting that “the court’s discretion to determine issues – as opposed to claims

– is most prudently exercised when . . . a decision on the issue presented could significantly

pare down the presentation of proof at trial or materially advance the settlement of the case”)

(emphasis in original).

Substantial judicial resources already have been spent in this four-month old case.

The parties have filed eleven motions and the Court has issued written orders on five. As the

Case 2:09-cv-00073-DGC Document 70 Filed 05/14/09 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Court previously has directed, the parties should refrain from filing unnecessary and

excessive motions. See Dkt. #62.

IT IS ORDERED that the Hillises’ motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. #49)

is denied. 

DATED this 14th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00073-DGC Document 70 Filed 05/14/09 Page 4 of 4