Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01700/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01700-0/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard A. Rejnert and Kim Rejnert,

husband and wife, married Arizona

residents, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Vishay Americas, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1700-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Rejner and his wife Kim Rejner, filed this action against Mr.

Rejnert’s former employer, Vishay Americas, Inc. The Complaint contains six counts: (1)

Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Negligent

Misrepresentation; (4) Negligence, Wrongful Termination; (5) Failure to Comply with

Arizona Wage Laws; and (6) Promissory Estoppel. (Dkt. 1). The parties engaged in

discovery, and at the close of discovery, Defendant brought the instant Motion for Summary

Judgment (Dkt. 30) on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs filed a Response (Dkt. 32) and

Defendant filed a Reply (Dkt. 35). The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without

oral argument. 

Plaintiffs’ Response fails to comply with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and does

not raise any material issue of triable fact. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ Objections (Dkt. 33) to

Defendant’s statement of facts does not set forth correspondingly numbered paragraphs nor

Case 2:06-cv-01700-EHC Document 42 Filed 03/28/08 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

Local Rule 56.1 (2007) provides:

Any party opposing a motion for summary judgment shall file a statement,

separate from that party’s memorandum of law, setting forth: (1) for each

paragraph of the moving party’s separate statement of facts, a correspondingly

numbered paragraph indicating whether the party disputes the statement of fact

set forth in that paragraph and a reference to the specific admissible portion of

the record supporting the party’s position if the fact is disputed; and (2) any

additional facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact or otherwise

preclude judgment in favor of the moving party. Each additional fact shall be

set forth in a separately numbered paragraph and shall refer to a specific

admissible portion of the record where the fact finds support. Each numbered

paragraph of the statement of facts set forth in the moving party’s separate

statement of facts shall, unless otherwise ordered, be deemed admitted for

purposes of the motion for summary judgment if not specifically

controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in the opposing

party’s separate statement of facts.

L.R.Civ. 56.1 (2007) (emphasis added).

- 2 -

does it direct the court to specific admissible portions of the record supporting their position.1

See Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (the non-moving party must

“identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment[]” and

is not a district court’s task to “scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact”)

(quoting Richards v. Combined Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs rely

almost entirely on an Affidavit of Richard Rejnert, which contradicts Mr. Rejnert’s own

deposition testimony. Plaintiffs may not raise a genuine issue by offering an affidavit that

contradicts prior deposition testimony. See Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262,

266 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The general rule in the Ninth Circuit is that a party cannot create an

issue of fact by an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony.”). Thus, the Court

deems Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary

Judgment (Dkt. 31) admitted for the purposes of this motion, and incorporates the same

herein. 

The Court has also considered both parties’ briefs and the relevant law and hereby

adopts the legal analysis provided in Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Case 2:06-cv-01700-EHC Document 42 Filed 03/28/08 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

2

Summary judgment is appropriate “when there is no genuine issue of material fact”

such that “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.

In determining whether to grant summary judgment, a district court must view the underlying

facts and the inferences to be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587

(1986). If a party will bear the burden of proof at trial as to an element essential to its claim,

and fails to adduce evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the

existence of that element, then summary judgment is appropriate. See Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Not every factual dispute is capable of defeating a

properly supported motion for summary judgment. Rather, the party opposing the motion

must show that there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A factual dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that

a rational trier of fact could resolve the dispute in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson,

477 U.S. at 248. A fact is material if determination of the issue might affect the outcome of

the case under the governing substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Thus, a party

opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot rest upon bare allegations or denials in the

pleadings, but must set forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial. See

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. If the nonmoving party’s evidence is merely colorable or not

significantly probative, a court may grant summary judgment. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at

249; see also Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, 818 F.2d 1466,

1468 (9th Cir. 1987).

- 3 -

(Dkt. 30) and Defendant’s Reply (Dkt. 35). Even viewing the underlying facts and the

inferences to be drawn from those facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court

cannot find a material issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475

U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Because Plaintiffs will bear the burden of proof at trial as the essential

elements of their claims, and have failed to adduce evidence establishing a genuine issue of

material fact with respect to the existence of those elements, summary judgment is

appropriate.2

 See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

//

//

//

//

Case 2:06-cv-01700-EHC Document 42 Filed 03/28/08 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30).

DATED this 27th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01700-EHC Document 42 Filed 03/28/08 Page 4 of 4