Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02293/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02293-0/pdf.json

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

Nathan Handy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; and Linda

Harland, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-02293-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 4),

which was filed and served on December 3, 2007. Plaintiff’s Response was due on January

7, 2008. On January 15, 2008, Defendants submitted a Motion for Summary Disposition

(Dkt. 7) based on Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion for summary judgment. 

While motions for summary judgment are typically filed at the close of discovery,

Rule 56(b) allows a defendant against whom a claim is asserted to move at any time “with

or without supporting affidavits for summary judgment in the party’s favor as to all or any

part” of the claims. Rule 56(e) directs that where a motion for summary judgment is filed,

the opposing party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his

response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” If the opposing party has not had sufficient

time to complete discovery or otherwise marshal facts to oppose the motion, application may

Case 2:07-cv-02293-GMS Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 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 -

be made under Rule 56(f) for a continuance of the proceedings pending completion of

discovery. Thi-Hawaii, Inc. v. First Commerce Financial Corp., 627 F.2d 991, 993-994 (9th

Cir. 1980). Where, as here, the opposing party fails to take advantage of Rule 56(f),

summary judgment may be entered, if otherwise appropriate. See British Airways Board v.

Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 981, 99 S. Ct. 1790,

60 L. Ed. 2d 241 (1979).

In this case, Plaintiff’s failure to move for a continuance under Rule 56(f) prevents

him from complaining of the timing of summary judgment in this case. See Thi-Hawaii, Inc.,

627 F.2d at 993-994 (“In the absence of an application for continuance, the district court had

before it all of the evidence which it could reasonably conclude would be submitted. There

was absolutely no reason to delay entry of judgment. The court did not err in granting the

defendants’ motion prior to any discovery.”). Thus, the Court will address whether

Defendants’ evidence would establish the right to a directed verdict at trial. If so,

Defendants’ motion will be granted in the absence of any presentation by Plaintiff. See

Neely v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 584 F.2d 341, 343 (9th Cir. 1978).

Because Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ motion, the Court concludes that no

genuine issue of material fact exists as to any of Defendants’ proposed findings of fact. See

L.R.Civ. 56.1(b) (“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....”). Thus,

Defendants’ Statement of Facts In Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt.

5) is adopted for purposes of deciding this motion. The Court has also considered, and

hereby adopts, the legal analysis provided in Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and

Authorities (Dkt. 4). Based upon the undisputed facts in the record and the relevant law, the

Court finds that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 4) should be

granted in favor of Defendant Linda Harland on Counts I & II, and in favor of Defendant

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on Count II.

Accordingly,

Case 2:07-cv-02293-GMS Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 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 -

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt.

4) and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Disposition (Dkt. 7).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter a judgment in favor of

Defendant Linda Harland as to Counts I & II and dismiss her from the case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter a judgment in favor of

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as to Count II. This case shall proceed against Defendant

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on the remaining Count I.

DATED this 19th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02293-GMS Document 8 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 3