FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T FEB 16, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 90 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 7- 03 14 1- CV-TCB- 1
BMU, INC.,
Pl ai nt iff -Co un te rDefen da nt -Ap pe ll an t,
W ORLD-W IDE CARD SOLUTION, LL C,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us CUMULUS MEDIA, INC.,
Defen da nt -Co un te rCl ai m an t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 16 , 20 10 )
Befo re CARNES, M ARCUS an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.
PER CURI AM:BMU, In c. an d W or ld -Wide Card So lu ti on s, LL C (“ BMU” ) fil ed su it ag ai ns t

Cu m ul us Med ia , In c., whi c h o w n s hu nd red s of rad io st at io ns acro ss th e co un try.
BMU all eg es th at Cu m

ul us br each ed an ag reem en t t o d is tri bu te BMU’s deb it card s

to it s li st en ers in th e Tall ah as se e, Fl or id a m ark et

. Th e d is tri ct co ur t gr an te d

Cu m ul us ’s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t, an d de ni ed BMU’s su m m ary jud gm en t

m ot io n. The co ur t fo un d th at BMU fai le d to fil e a res po ns e to Cu m ul us ’s st at em en t
of m at eri al fact s, as req ui red by Loc al Ru le 56 .1(B )(2 )(a) , N.D. Ga. Acco rd in gl y , th e
di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed th e st a te m en t of fact s su pp li ed by Cu m ul us as un di sp ut ed

. BMU ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to Cu m

ul us , a rg ui ng
th at it in de ed fil ed a res po ns e to Cu m ul us ’s st at em en t o f m at eri al fact s
The rel ev an t lo cal ru le pr ov id es th at , “ [a] res po nd en t to a su m m ary jud gm en t

m ot io n sh al l in cl ud e th e fo ll owi ng do cu m en ts wit h th e res p o n s i v e br ie f: [ ] [a]

res po ns e to th e m ov an t’s st at em en t of un di sp ut ed fact s[ , w h i c h] sh al l co nt ai n
in di vi du al ly nu m

be red , co nc is e, no na rg um en ta ti ve res po ns es co rres po nd in g to each
of th e m ov an t’s nu m

be red un di sp ut ed m at eri a l f act s.” L.R. 56 .1(B )(2 )(a) (1 ). The

ru le s fu rth er p ro vi de th at th e d is tri ct co ur t
wil l de em each of th e m ov an t’s fact s as ad m it te d un le ss th e res po nd en t: (i) di rect ly ref

ut es th e m ov an t’s fact wit h co nc is e res po ns es su pp or te d by sp eci fic ci ta ti on s to ev id en ce (in cl ud in g pa ge or pa rag rap h nu m be r); (ii ) st at es a va li d ob

jecti on to th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e m ov an t’s fact ; or (ii i) po in ts ou t th at th e m ov an t’s ci ta ti on do es no t su pp or t th e m ov an t’s

2fact o r t ha t th e m ov an t’s fact is no t m at eri al or ot he rwis e ha s fai le d to

co m pl y wit h t he pro vi si on s s et ou t i n LR 5 6.1 B.(1 ).

L.R. 56 .1(B )(2 )(a) (2 ).

On Sep te m

be r 22 , 20 08 , Cu m

ul us fil ed it s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d

st at em en t of m at eri al fact s. On Oct o b er 24 , 20 08 , BMU fil ed it s res po ns e to 1

Cu m ul us ’s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t an d two co pi es of a st at em en t of m at eri al
fact s. (R.3 -7 9, 80 , 81 .) It a p p e a r s t ha t th e two st at em en ts of m at eri al fact s are 2

id en ti cal , ex cep t th at th e se co nd ve rs io n, (R.1 -8 1) , in cl ud es an ex hi bi t om it te d fro m
th e fir st fil in g. The lo cal ru le s al lo w a “ s t a t em en t of ad di ti on al fact s whi ch th e

res po nd en t co nt en ds are m at eri al an d pr es en t a ge nu i n e is su e fo r tri al .” L.R.

56 .1(B )(2 )(b ). Howev er, th e ru le s fir st cl earl y r e q u i re a “ res po ns e to th e m ov an t’s

st at em en t of un di sp ut ed fact s.” L. R. 56 .1 (B)(2 )(a)

. As no te d by th e di st ric t cou rt,
BMU fai le d to co m

pl y wit h th is req ui rem en t, de sp it e th e fact th at Cu m ul us “ po in te d

ou t th is de fic ie nc y in it s rep ly br ie f in su pp or t of it s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.” (R.4 -9 1 at 2, ci ti ng , R.4 -8 6 at 2.) BMU “ di d no t f i l e a r e s p o n se [to Cu m

ul us ’s

st at em en t of m at eri al fact s]; al l th at th ey fil ed was th ei r own st at em en t of ad di ti on al

BMU filed a motion on October 3, 2008 to extend the deadlin e t o respond to Cumulus’s 1 motion, which the district court g rante d. (R.3-76, 78.)
Al t h o u gh n ot rele vant to the issue befor e this court, on October 31, 2008, BMU filed a 2 motion for summary judgme nt and a statement of materia l fac ts. (R.3-82.) On November 24, 2008, Cumulus filed its response to BMU’ s motion, and a response to BMU’ s statement of materia l fac ts, as re quired by

the local r

ules. (R.4-88, 89.)
3fact s. Alt ho ug h a st at em en t o f ad di ti on al fact s i s p erm it te d . . . it is no t a s ub st it ut e

fo r a res po ns e.” (R.5 -1 00 at 3 .)

Bec au se BMU fai le d to fil e a res po ns e to Cu m ul us ’s st at em en t of un di sp ut ed
fact s, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by de em in g “ al l of th e fact s se t fo rth in [Cu m ul us ’s]

st at em en t of fact s to be ad m it te d.” (R.4 -9 1 at 2.) Giv en th at th es e fact s are de em ed
ad m it te d, BMU pr es en ts no arg um en t to su pp or t a co nc lu si on th at su m m ary jud gm en t

was im pr op erl y gr an te d or a co nc lu si on th at BMU’s m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n was
im pr op erl y de ni ed . And , we fin d n o e rro r in de ni al of B MU’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.
AFFIR MED.

4