Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01072/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01072-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stanley Antlocer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Security Title Agency; Bayview Loan

Servicing, LLC; M&T Bank; Geoff

“Action” Adams; and Does 1-10, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1072-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Geoff “Action” Adams’s (“Adams”) Motion

for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 29.) For the following reasons, the Court denies the Motion

without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Neither party has complied with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1, which requires

a party filing or opposing a motion for summary judgment to file a separate statement of

facts. L. R. Civ. P. 56.1. That rule further requires that “each material 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 (for example, affidavit, deposition, discovery response,

etc.).” Id.

It appears from the statements made in the briefs that, in April 2003, Plaintiff Stanley

Antlocer and his wife executed a deed of trust to purchase a piece of real property, with

Case 2:09-cv-01072-GMS Document 34 Filed 04/22/10 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 -

Defendant Security Title Agency (“STA”) as the trustee and Defendant BayView Loan

Servicing, LLC (“BLS”) as the beneficiary. Apparently, Antlocer began renting the property

to tenants. On May 29, 2009, STA conducted a trustee’s sale, at which BLS purchased the

property. The Motion asserts that Adams is a real estate salesperson, whom BLS retained

to list the property for sale after it had purchased the property at the deed of trust sale.

Plaintiff sent Adams a letter threatening to arrest and sue Adams for entering the property.

Plaintiff contends that Adams ignored the letter and offered to pay $700 to the tenants in

exchange for them vacating the property.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges a violation of the Fair Dept Collection

Practices Act and “various Federal laws,” seeking injunctive and punitive relief, as well as

requesting that Adams be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Adams, who

apparently accepted or waived service, then moved for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

In his Motion, Adams asserts that he owes no duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff and

that he was simply doing his job. Not only is it unclear whether these arguments are legally

sufficient, but, more importantly, these blanket assertions fail because Adams has not

provided the Court with portions of the record upon which the Court could determine

whether Adams owed a duty to Plaintiff, what his job was, what actions he took, or any other

admissible facts that would be relevant to either party’s claims or defenses.

As the moving party, Adams “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district

court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it

believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Adams has not met these responsibilities as he has neither

complied with Local Rule 56.1 nor provided any other way for the Court to determine

whether there are genuine issues of material fact. Because this failure “may constitute

Case 2:09-cv-01072-GMS Document 34 Filed 04/22/10 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

1

 Plaintiff contends that “Defendant is not the Real Person in Interest under [Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure] 17.” (Dkt. # 30 at 7.) Rule 17, however, relates to prosecuting

actions in the name of the real party in interest—a doctrine that does not appear to apply to

whether Adams may defend himself in this lawsuit.

- 3 -

grounds for the denial of this motion,” L. R. Civ. P. 56.1, the Court denies the Motion

without prejudice.1

Defendant also requests sanctions and attorneys fees. Because the Court denies the

Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court likewise denies the request for fees without

prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(Dkt. # 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DATED this 21st day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01072-GMS Document 34 Filed 04/22/10 Page 3 of 3