Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02099/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-02099-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage

---

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

Diane Mann, as Trustee for )

the Estate of LeapSource, )

Inc., et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CIV 02-2099-PHX RCB

)

Vs. ) O R D E R

)

GTCR Golder Rauner, L.L.C., )

a Delaware limited liability )

company, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

On February 22, 2006, Defendant Michael Makings ("Makings")

moved for summary judgment on the joint venture-related claims in

this matter, specifically Counts 12 and 14. Mot. (doc. 323). 

Additionally, within that same motion, Makings joined in GTCR's and

Kirkland & Ellis' motions on the same joint venture-related claims. 

Id.

Thereafter, on March 28, 2006, the Court issued an order

granting GTCR's motion for summary judgment on the joint venture

related claims, including Counts 12 and 14. Order (doc. 356). In

Case 2:02-cv-02099-RCB Document 386 Filed 05/09/06 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 -

its order, the Court concluded that no joint venture existed

between the Individual Plaintiffs and GTCR. Id. at 31. Thus, in

their response to Makings' motion for summary judgment on the same

issues, Plaintiffs assert that, in light of the Court's prior

ruling, the Makings' motion is now moot. Resp. (doc. 364) at 2. 

Plaintiffs offer no argument or evidence in opposition to Makings'

motion for summary judgment. Id. On April 27, 2006, Makings filed

a reply in opposition to Plaintiffs' determination regarding his

motion. Reply (doc. 376).

Under Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a

non-moving party must respond to a properly supported motion for

summary judgment by setting forth "specific facts showing that

there is a genuine issue for trial." "If the adverse party does

not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered

against the adverse party." Id. Furthermore, Local Rule 7.2(i)

provides that, “if the opposing party does not serve and file the

required answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be

deemed a consent to the denial or granting of the motion and the

Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” The Ninth Circuit

requires that such motions be facially meritorious. See Henry v.

Gill Indus., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993).

On March 28, 2006, the Court granted GTCR's motion for summary

judgment, which both Kirkland & Ellis ("K&E") and Makings joined. 

Joinder (doc. 242); Mot. (doc. 323). In its order, the Court found

that no joint venture existed between the Individual Plaintiffs and

GTCR. Order (doc. 356) at 31. Makings may rely on this

determination. Thus, Makings shall receive the same treatment as

GTCR and K&E, making inappropriate a denial of his motion as moot. 

Case 2:02-cv-02099-RCB Document 386 Filed 05/09/06 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 -

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Makings' Motion for Summary

Judgment on the Joint Venture Related Claims (doc. 323) is GRANTED.

DATED this 9th day of May, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record.

Case 2:02-cv-02099-RCB Document 386 Filed 05/09/06 Page 3 of 3