Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02622/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-02622-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Keith Herring, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. CV 06-2622-PHX-PGR

 

 ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment Re: Breach of Contract (Doc. 11). 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants alleging

seven different claims for relief On December 6, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed the present

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment requesting that this Court enter judgment in favor of

the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on Counts Two and Seven of their Complaint,

Breach of Contract and Wrongful Disclosure respectively. The pending motion was

submitted before the Defendants filed their Answer which followed shortly thereafter on

December 12, 2006. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

Case 3:06-cv-02622-PGR Document 30 Filed 03/06/07 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

- 2 -

of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of a

claim in the case on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1985). There is no genuine issue of material fact for trial where

the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving

party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

The Plaintiffs argue that there is no genuine issue of material fact remaining for trial

on whether the Defendants breached the Repayment Plan Contract executed by the parties.

In addition, the Plaintiffs assert that their claim in tort for wrongful disclosure is also ripe for

entry of judgment in their favor as no factual issue remains as to whether the Defendants

wrongfully foreclosed on Plaintiffs' residence. The Defendants oppose entry of partial

summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) stating that they have not had the

opportunity to develop facts essential to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion. The Defendants

request that this Court deny the motion as discovery is needed to determine: (1) The facts

leading up to the sale of the home at issue, including Plaintiffs' loan payment history and

their communications with Defendants regarding the same; (2) Whether the Defendants

complied with A.R.S. § 33-808 and provided the Plaintiffs with notice of the sale; and (3)

Whether Plaintiffs incurred any damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract as

necessary to meet the essential elements of their claim.

 Fed. R. of Civ. P. 56(f) describes the circumstances under which the Court may deny

a motion for summary judgment, or grant a continuance to permit the party opposing the

motion to obtain additional discovery necessary to respond:

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the

motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by

affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the

Court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a

continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to

be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as

is just.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).

Case 3:06-cv-02622-PGR Document 30 Filed 03/06/07 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 -

The purpose of Rule 56(f) is to prevent the opposing party from being railroaded by a

premature motion for summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 326. "When a motion for

summary judgment is filed so early in the litigation, before a party has had any realistic

opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case, district courts should grant

any Rule 56(f) motion fairly freely." Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assinibione

& Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003).

Under the present circumstances, the Defendants' arguments regarding Rule 56(f) are

not entirely persuasive. The Defendants contend that prior to the Plaintiffs filing the present

motion no discovery had occurred. As such, the Defendants argue that they have not had an

opportunity to develop facts essential to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion and that the pending

motion is premature. Defendants aver that once initial disclosure statements are exchanged

and Defendants serve written discovery requests, they will then need to review the responses

thereto, depose Plaintiffs, prepare affidavits, and present the facts essential to oppose

Plaintiffs' motion. In part, the Court disagrees. As the Plaintiffs point out, this case has been

on-going for a year and a half. In fact, the parties participated in private mediation prior to

formal litigation being filed. Although the Defendants have since retained new counsel, this

does not enable them to argue that they do not have the facts necessary to respond to

Plaintiffs' claims. Based on the current posture of the litigation, it seems that this case was

well-developed prior to its formal commencement. Notwithstanding, the Court concludes

that a brief continuance will be provided under Rule 56(f) in order for Defendants to conduct

the discovery they feel is necessary to file a proper opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment. The Defendants' response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment is due to the Court on or before April 9, 2007. The Plaintiffs'

reply brief will be due fifteen (15) days after receipt of the Defendants' opposition.

Although the Plaintiffs request that they be awarded the attorneys' fees and costs they

incurred in responding to the Defendants' Rule 56(f) request, the Court declines to do so.

Since this is primarily a breach of contract dispute, Arizona law dictates that the Court may

award the successful party to such an action his reasonable attorneys' fees upon resolution

Case 3:06-cv-02622-PGR Document 30 Filed 03/06/07 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 -

of the case. A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). Once the prevailing party has been determined, an

award of attorneys' fees will then be considered.

 DATED this 6th day of March, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-02622-PGR Document 30 Filed 03/06/07 Page 4 of 4