Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01193/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01193-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Default

---

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

Arizona Bank & Trust, an Arizona

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Mark A. Ramundo; Jane Doe Ramundo,

husband and wife, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1193-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Arizona Bank & Trust’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. # 30) and Defendant Mark A. Ramundo’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment and, in the Alternative, Motion for Rule 56(f) Relief (Doc. # 39).

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion and grants Defendant’s

motion for Rule 56(f) relief.

BACKGROUND

In October 2005, Defendant Mark A. Ramundo purchased a parcel of unimproved

land, and executed a promissory note and a deed of trust in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff

alleges that Defendant defaulted under the promissory note and, as a result, Plaintiff

foreclosed its security interest in Defendant’s property. In May 2008, Plaintiff filed the

instant action in the Maricopa County Superior Court, seeking from Defendant the difference

between the fair market value of the property and the deficiency balance under the

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 46 Filed 10/08/09 Page 1 of 3
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 -

promissory note. In June 2008, Defendant removed Plaintiff’s action to this Court. In July

2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which Defendant opposes and, in the

alternative, seeks Rule 56(f) relief.

ANALYSIS

Rule 56(f) provides a means for litigants to avoid summary judgment when they have

not had sufficient time to develop affirmative evidence. United States v. Kitsap Physicians

Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). “Although Rule 56(f) facially gives judges the

discretion to disallow discovery when the non-moving party cannot yet submit evidence

supporting its opposition, the Supreme Court has restated the rule as requiring, rather than

merely permitting, discovery ‘where the non-moving party has not had the opportunity to

discover information that is essential to its opposition.’ ” Metabolife Int'l, Inc. v. Wornick,

264 F.3d 832, 846 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250

n. 5 (1986)). See also Berkeley v. Home Ins. Co., 68 F.3d 1409, 1414 (D.C. Cir. 1995)

(stating “the usual generous approach toward granting Rule 56(f) motions”); Wichita Falls

Office Assoc. v. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 919 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1992) (Rule 56(f) relief

“should be granted almost as a matter of course unless the non-moving party has not

diligently pursued discovery of the evidence” (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted)).

In this case, Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment before the Court held its

Rule 16 scheduling conference and before any discovery had been conducted. “Where . . .

a summary judgment motion is filed so early in the case, district courts should grant any Rule

56(f) motions fairly freely.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. The Assiniboine & Sioux

Tribes, 323 F .3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003). Based on a review of Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment, the Court finds that Defendant has not yet had the opportunity to

discover information that is essential to his opposition. Defendant claims that he made certain

payments that were not credited by Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff is seeking a judgment based

upon a deficiency due under the promissory note, Defendant’s assertion pertaining to

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 46 Filed 10/08/09 Page 2 of 3
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 -

payments not credited by Plaintiff is directly related to the amount of damages available to

Plaintiff.

Moreover, Defendant is seeking documents from Plaintiff to determine how Plaintiff

calculated the interest it alleges Defendant owes under the promissory note. Plaintiff has not

demonstrated how it calculated the interest it is alleging is due under the note. While

Plaintiff argues that “the terms of the Note establish the applicable interest rate,” Doc. 45 at

p. 4, the note itself provides for a variable interest rate and Plaintiff has not submitted any

evidence supporting its calculations. Thus, Defendant seeks evidence from Plaintiff as to

how Plaintiff calculated the interest owing and what interest rate Plaintiff applied under the

note. Such evidence again is related to the amount of damages available to Plaintiff. Given

that at the time of the filing of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment neither party had

conducted discovery or exchanged initial disclosures, and given the Ninth Circuit’s

pronouncement that district courts should grant Rule 56(f) motions “fairly freely,” the Court

finds that Defendant’s requested Rule 56(f) relief should be granted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Arizona Bank & Trust’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. # 30) is denied without prejudice; that Plaintiff may re-file a motion for

summary judgment after the close of discovery but within the dispositive motion deadline

as outlined in this Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Doc. # 35).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Mark A. Ramundo’s Response to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and, in the Alternative, Motion for Rule 56(f)

Relief (Doc. # 39) is granted to the extent that he is seeking Rule 56(f) relief.

DATED this 8th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01193-JAT Document 46 Filed 10/08/09 Page 3 of 3