Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01071/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01071-15/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dr. Guenter Stetter, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Blackpool, LLC; John R. Bickley IV; and 

Burton D. Gould, 

Defendants.

No. CV-09-1071-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 In February 2009, Dr. Guenter Stetter entered into an asset management 

agreement with Blackpool, LLC, and gave Blackpool $350,000 to invest on his behalf. 

He claims that the money has been misspent by Blackpool and its managers, John 

Bickley and Burton Gould. Setter filed an amended complaint against Blackpool and its 

managers on October 30, 2009, seeking damages in the amount of $350,000 and asserting 

claims for injunctive relief, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and 

conversion. Doc. 74. Default judgment has been entered against Blackpool (Doc. 176), 

and default has been entered against Bickley (Doc. 205). 

 Stetter has filed a motion for summary judgment. Doc. 211. Gould opposes the 

motion. Doc. 214. Oral argument has not been requested. For reasons that follow, the 

motion will be denied. 

 Stetter’s motion does not comply with the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. 

In violation Local Rule 56.1(a), no separate statement of facts accompanies the 

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 216 Filed 09/14/11 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

memorandum of law (Doc. 211). Stetter filed a statement of facts more than five months 

ago (Doc. 188), but that document was submitted in support of a different summary 

judgment motion (Doc. 177). The Court “declines to search through the previously-filed 

statement of facts to find relevant citations to the record given [Stetter’s] failure in both 

of [his] memoranda to ‘include citations to the specific paragraph in the statement of facts 

that supports factual assertions made in the memoranda,’ as mandated by [Local Rule] 

56.1(e).” Karlsson Group, Inc. v. Langley Farm Invs., LLC, No. CV-07-0457-PHXPGR, 2008 WL 4183025, at *7 n.17 (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2008). More importantly, while 

Stetter submitted an exhibit list (Doc. 193) in connection with his original summary 

judgment motion and statement of facts, the exhibits themselves have not been made part 

of the record. 

 As the party seeking summary judgment, Stetter bears the burden of not only 

informing the Court of the basis for his motion, but also “identifying those portions of 

[the record] which [he] believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material 

fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) 

(a party asserting that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed must support the assertion by 

“citing to particular parts of materials in the record”). Stetter has presented no evidence 

“affirmatively demonstrate[ing] that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for 

[him].” Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). In short, 

Stetter “has not met his summary judgment burden either in form or substance.” 

Imamoto v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 08-00137 JMS/KSC, 2008 WL 4657811, at *8 

(D. Haw. Oct. 21, 2008); see James v. Scribner, No. 1:04-CV-05878-LJO-DLB P, 2008 

WL 686402, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2008) (a plaintiff moving for summary judgment 

bears the burden of “setting forth evidence establishing beyond controversy the elements 

of his claims”). 

 This Circuit has made clear that a district court “need not examine the entire file 

for evidence establishing [the absence of] a genuine issue of fact, where the evidence is 

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 216 Filed 09/14/11 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

not set forth in the [moving] papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently 

be found.” Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001); see 

also Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (the district court has no 

responsibility on summary judgment to “scour the record in search of a genuine issue of 

triable fact”). “As the Seventh Circuit observed in its now familiar maxim, ‘judges are 

not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.’” Independent Towers of Wash. v. 

Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Dunkel, 927 

F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991)). 

 Stetter’s failure to file a properly supported summary judgment motion is not 

excusable. His original motion was summarily denied because he failed to serve it on 

Defendants and filed the statement of facts approximately six weeks after the motion and 

the Court’s deadline for filing dispositive motions. See Docs. 179, 198. The Court 

permitted Stetter to file a second motion for summary judgment, but explicitly warned 

him that the motion “shall comply fully with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1.” Doc. 

206 at 1. Stetter has refused to follow that admonition. His summary judgment motion 

will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiff Guenter Stetter’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 211) is 

denied. 

 2. Plaintiff and Defendant Burton Gould’s joint final pretrial order is due by 

October 14, 2011. The bench trial in this matter will begin on October 27, 2011 at 9:00 

a.m. See Doc. 206. 

 Dated this 14th day of September, 2011. 

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 216 Filed 09/14/11 Page 3 of 3