## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 33 07

__ __ __ __ __ _

Gan no n In te rn at io na l, Ltd .; Th e *
Gan no n P aci fic Co m

pa ny; The Ga nn on *
Co m pa ny (Hon g Ko ng ), Lim it ed ; *
Gan no n Vi et na m

Co ., Ltd., *

*
Pl ai nt iff s/ App el la nt s, *

*

v. *

*

W al te r Bl oc ke r, * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s

* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Defen da nt /Ap pe ll ee, * East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

* Ig ni ti on Cap it al Part ne rs ; Sa nd al woo d *

In ve st m en ts , Lim it ed ; Gan no n B rewer y *

Jo in t St oc k C om

pa ny, *

*
Defen da nt s, *

*
Co nn el l Br os . Com

pa ny, L td

., *

*

Mo va nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 9, 2 01 2
Fil ed : J ul y

17 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _Befo re LOKEN and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d GERR ARD, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ _
GERRARD, Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

Thi s cas e in vo lv es a wire tra ns fer fro m th e pl ai nt iff ’s ba nk acco un t to th e
de fen da nt ’s wife

. The pl ai nt iff cl ai m ed th at th e de fen da nt

, a fo rm er em pl oyee of th e pl ai nt iff

, in it ia te d th e tra ns fer un la wfu ll y

. Bu t th e de fen da nt m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, of

feri ng ev id en ce of an ot he r ex pl an at io n fo r th e tra ns fer. The pl ai nt iff di d

no t of fer an y ev id en ce in res po ns e, an d th e di st ric t co ur t en te red su m m ary jud gm en t 2

fo r th e d efen da nt

.

The is su e pr es en te d in th is ap pe al is whe th er th e de fen da nt m ad e th e i n it ia l

sh owi ng req ui red by Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 th at th ere was no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al

f a c t an d th at he was en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w, th ereb y sh ift i n g t h e
bu rd en to th e p la in ti ff t o pr es en t affi rm at iv e ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t a g en ui ne is su e

of m at eri al fact ex is te d. W e fin d th at th e de fen da nt m ad e th e req ui red sh owi ng , an d

affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

I

Thi s li ti ga ti on be ga n whe n Gan no n In te rn at io na l, Ltd

. ( “Ga n n on ”), fil ed a

co m pl ai nt in di st ric t co ur t ag ai ns t W al te r Bl oc ke r an d se ve ral co rp or at e de fen da nt s.

Bl oc ke r is a fo rm er em

pl oyee of G an no n who m an ag ed so m e of Gan no n’s Asi an

su bs id ia rie s. Gann on ’s op erat iv e co m pl ai nt all eg ed th at in May 200 7, Bl oc ke r ha d

se cret ly cau se d a wire tra ns fer of $4 15 ,00 0 from th e ba nk acco un t of Gan no n Hon g

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nebr as ka , si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.

The Hon or ab le Je an C. Ham il to n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 2

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2-Kon g in to hi s wife ’s pe rs on al ba nk acco un t. Thi s tra ns fer, Gan no n al le ge d, was no t

fo r a le gi ti m at e bu si ne s s p u r p os e. Gan no n fu rth er al le ge d th at in Feb ru ary 20 09

, Bl oc ke r cau se d a wire tra ns fer of $4 0,0 00 fro m a Gan no n Hon g Kon g ba nk acco un t

t o t h e p ers on al ba nk acco un t of Gan no n’s fo rm er Ch ie f Fi na nc ia l Offi cer, Bo b

Green e, ag ai n fo r no leg it im at e b us in es s p ur po se

.

Gan no n al so al le ge d th at Bl oc ke r was pa rt of a sc he m e to di ve st Gan no n of it s

i n v e s t men t in a joi nt ve nt ur e to bu il d a br ewery in Viet na m

. Gan no n cl ai m ed t h a t

Bl oc ke r ha d refu se d to pr ov id e Gan no n wit h acce ss to reco rd s of Gan no n

su bs id ia ries, pa

rti cu la rly rel at in g to Gan no n Viet na m ’s li cen se to di st rib ut e Anh eu se r

Bu sc h pr od uc ts in Viet na m

. And Gan no n al le ge d th at

, ag ai ns t it s or de rs , Bl oc ke r ha d

di ve rte d Gan no n fu nd s to a Viet na m es e joi nt st oc k co m pa ny fo rm ed to op erat e th e pl an ne d b rewer y

.

The se act s, acco rd in g to Gan no n, ga ve ris e to se ve ral cl ai m s fo r rel ie f, ag ai ns t

Bl oc ke r an d th e th ree ot he r de fen da nt s (th e Viet na m es e joi nt st oc k co m pa ny an d two

W as hi ng to n pr iv at e e q u i t y fir m s)

. Gan no n al le ge d th at Bl oc ke r ha d br each ed hi s
fid uc ia ry du ti es to Gan no n. G a n n o n cl ai m ed th at Bl oc ke r ha d co m m it te d frau d by

cau si ng th e wir e tr an sf

ers to pe rs on al ba nk acco un ts

. Gan no n al le ge d t ha t t he wire

tra ns fer to Bl oc ke r’s wife ’s pe rs on al acco un t co ns ti tu te d un jus t en ric hm en t an d

co nv ers io n. Ano th er frau d cl ai m , ag ai ns t Bl oc ke r an d th e eq ui ty fir m s, was ba se d on

a cal l fo r cap it al co nt rib ut io n to th e joi nt st oc k co m pa ny. Th e a l l e g e d sc he m e to

d iv es t Gan no n of it s in te res t in th e joi nt st oc k co m pa ny al so fo rm ed t h e b a s i s f o r
cl ai m s of to rti ou s in te rfer en ce wit h bu si ne ss rel at io ns hi ps , i n d u c in g a br each of

fid uc ia ry du ty, vi ol at in g Sect io n 10 (b ) of th e Secu rit ie s Exc ha ng e Act of 19 34

, an d 3

ci vi l co ns pi racy. And Gann on pl ed se pa rat e cl ai m s fo r de cl arat or y jud gm en t an d a

co ns tru ct iv e tr us t.

Sect io n 1 0( b) is th e an ti -fra ud pro vi si on of t he Act. 1 5 U.S.C. § 78 j. 3

-3-Bl oc ke r m ov ed to di sm is s un de r Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b )(4 ), (5 ), an d (6 ), an d th e

eq ui ty fir m s m ov ed to di sm is s un de r Fed

. R

. C i v. P. 12 (b )(1 ) an d (2 ), co nt es ti ng

pe rs on al an d su bjec t-matte r juri s d i c t io n. Bl oc ke r al so m ov ed fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he cla im s ar is in g o ut of t he all eg ed $4 15 ,00 0 t ran sf er.

The di st ric t co ur t di sp os ed of th e Ru le 12 m ot io ns fir st

. It di sm is se d th e eq ui ty

fir m s fo r la ck of pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on

. The co ur t di sm is se d th e frau d cl ai m ba se d on

th e wire tra n s f

e r s , a s well as th e to rti ou s in te rfer en ce an d Sect io n 10 (b ) cl ai m s, fo r

fai li ng to st at e cl ai m s fo r rel ie f. It di sm is se d th e co ns tru ct iv e tr us t cl ai m be cau se a

co ns tru ct iv e tru st is a rem ed y , no t a se pa rat e cau se of act io n. And fin al ly, th e co ur t

fo un d th at an y rem ai ni ng cl ai m s rel at in g to th e in ve st m e nt ag reem en t be twee n

Gan no n an d th e eq ui ty fir m s were su bjec t to th e arb it rat io n cl au se of th e ag reem en t,

an d di sm is se d th os e cl ai m s on th at ba si s. Left st an di ng , to th e ex te nt th ey were ba se d

on th e wire tra ns fers

, were th e cl ai m s fo r br each of fid uc ia ry du ty, un jus t en ric hm en t,

co nv ers io n, an d c iv il co ns pi racy.

Befo re th e co u r t r u l ed on Bl oc ke r’s m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t,

Gan no n fil ed a m ot io n to vo lu nt ari ly di sm is s th e en ti re act io n wit ho ut pr ejud ic e,

pu rs ua nt to Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 41 (a)( 2)

. Gan no n ex pl ai ne d th at Bl oc ke r an d Green e ha d

su ed it in a Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t, an d i t wan te d t o d is m is s i ts cla im s i n fed eral co ur t

an d refi le th em in th e st at e co ur t acti on

. Bl oc ke r op po se d vo lu nt ary di sm is sa l. Bu t

be fo re th e co ur t ad dr es se d Gan no n’s m ot io n to vo lu n t a ril y di sm is s, it gr an te d

Bl oc ke r’s m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t.

In su pp or t of h i s mo ti on fo r pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t, Bl oc ke r pr es en te d

se ve ral ex hi bi ts

. Tran Quo c Hun g, th e fo rm er chi ef fin an ci al of fic er of the Gann on

su bs id ia rie s at is su e, pr ov id ed a st at em en t reg ard in g th e $4 15 ,00 0 tra ns act io n. Hun g

ex pl ai ne d th at in th e co ur se of hi s du ti es fo r th e Gan no n su bs id ia rie s, he ha d be en

in vo lv ed in ha n d l i n g a tra ns act io n be twee n two ot he r co m pa ni es : Diag eo Fi na nc e

PLC an d Lin h Gia Co Ltd

. Diag eo Fi na nc e is a s u b s i d i a r y of Diag eo , a la rg e

-4-wor ld wid e pr od uc er of al co ho li c be ve rag es

. Lin h Gia is in th e bu si ne ss of im po rti ng

an d d i s t rib ut in g fo rei gn al co ho li c be ve rag es in Viet na m

. Lin h Gia is pa rtl y own ed
by Doan Ph uo ng Ly , Blo ck er’s wif e.

Acco rd in g to Hun g, Lin h Gia co nt ract ed wit h Gan no n fo r su pp or t se rv ic es

reg ar d i n g th e im

po rt an d di st rib ut io n of al co ho li c be ve rag es pr od uc ed by Diag eo

. Lin h Gia ne ed ed m on ey fo r ex pe ns es su ch as ta xe s, op erat in g co st s, an d ad ve rti si ng ; Diag eo ag reed to pr ov id e it

. Diag eo wire d ap pr ox im at el y $4 70 ,00 0 to Gan no n Hon g

Kon g— m on ey th a t w as , acco rd in g to Hun g, in te nd ed fo r Lin h Gia. So

, Gan no n

Hon g Kon g tra ns ferr ed $4 15 ,00 0 of th at m on ey to Ly

, who was ex pe ct ed to tra ns fer

th at am ou nt to Lin h Gia fo r ex pe ns es

. And

, acco rd in g to Hun g, th os e ex pe ns es were

pa id as ag reed by Ly an d Lin h Gia. Hun g s ai d t ha t he ha d ve rif ie d Ly ’s t ran sf

er of

th e m on ey to a Lin h Gia acco un t, an d he a t ta ch ed an ex hi bi t (wri tt en in a fo rei gn

la ng ua ge whi ch is pr es um ab ly Viet na m es e) th at he pr of fers as ev id en c e o f th at

tra ns fer. Bl oc ke r’s own st at em en t ex pl ai ns th at th e fu nd s were tra ns ferr ed th ro ug h
Ly so th ey wou ld be s e en as a “ cap it al co nt rib ut io n” fro m a sh areh ol de r in st ead of

be in g d eem ed in co m e to Lin h Gi a. 4

Hun g al so ex pl ai ne d th at Bl oc ke r w a s n o t im m ed ia te ly aware of th es e

tra ns fers —t he y were Hun g’s res po ns ib il it y as ch ie f fin an ci al of fic er. Hun g de cl ared

th at Diag eo ha d no de bt to Gan no n whi ch wou ld ha ve en ti tl ed Gan no n to th e m on ey

. Ly pr ov id ed a de cl ara t i o n c o n si st en t wit h Hun g’s acco un t of th e tra ns act io ns , to

wh i c h sh e at ta ch ed se ve ral ex hi bi ts (ag ai n, pr im ari ly in a fo rei gn la ng ua ge we

pr es um e is Viet na m es e) as ev i d e nc e of Lin h Gia’s us e of th e fu nd s on le gi ti m at e
bu si ne ss ex pe ns es as so ci a t e d wit h im po rti ng an d di st rib ut in g Diag eo pr od uc ts

. Bl oc ke r’s own st at em en t was co ns is te nt wit h Hu ng ’s and Ly ’s.

W he th er th is ta ct ic was co ns is te nt wit h an y ap pl ic ab le ta x la ws is no t at is su e. 4

-5-Gan no n di d no t su bm it ev id en ce in res po ns e to Bl oc ke r’s m ot io n. In st ead

, it

arg ue d th at Bl oc ke r h a d no t m ad e a pr im a faci e cas e fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. It

as se rte d th at two of th e ex hi bi ts at ta ch ed to Ly ’s st at em en t refe rred no t to Lin h Gia,

bu t to a di ffer en t co m

pa ny, N h a n Viet

. It co nt en de d th at Hun g’s st at em en t was

in ad m is sa bl e he ars ay wit h res pe ct to Diag eo ’s i n t e n t to fu nd Lin h Gia. And it

co m pl ai ne d t ha t t he rece ip t fo r th e tr an sf er fro m Ly to Lin h Gi a was ha nd writ te n.

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Bl oc ke r’s m ot io n. The co ur t fo un d th at Bl oc ke r ha d

pr ov en th e ab se nc e of a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact wit h res pe ct to th e co nv ers io n
cl ai m be cau se Gan no n ha d no t id en ti fie d an y de bt owe d by Diag eo to Gan no n th at

wou ld ex pl ai n th e $4 70 ,00 0 tra nsfe r. A nd Bl oc ke r ha d pres en te d un reb ut te d ev id en ce

ex pl ai ni ng th e tra ns fer. The ref or e, th e co ur t reas on ed

, th e un co nt es te d ev id en ce

es ta bl is he d th at Gan no n ha d no rig ht to po ss es si on of th e fu nd s, de feat in g it s

co nv ers io n cl ai m

. W he th er Lin h Gia ha d sp en t th e m on ey pr op erl y —i .e., as req ui red
by Lin h Gia’s ag reem en t wit h Diag eo —was , th e co ur t fo un d, irr el ev an t to Gan no n’s

cl ai m ag ai ns t Bl oc ke r. Fo r si m il ar reas on s, th e co ur t fo un d th at th e cl ai m fo r br each

of fid uc ia ry du ty fai le d, be cau se Bl oc ke r co ul d no t ha ve br each ed a fid uc ia ry du ty to

Gan no n by tra ns ferr in g fu nd s f o r a le gi ti m at e bu si ne ss pu rp os e. And th e un jus t

en ric hm en t cl ai m fai le d be cau se Gan no n ne ve r ha d a cl ai m to th e fu nd s, an d ne it he r

Bl oc ke r no r Ly

ret ai ne d t he be ne fit of t he fun ds

.

The co ur t sp eci fic al ly rejected th e ev id en ti ary co m pl ai nt s Gann on ha d m ad e.
The co ur t reject ed Gan no n’s he ars ay ob jecti on s, r e a s on in g th at th e di sp ut ed

st at em en ts were b a s ed on th e fir st -h an d kn owl ed ge of th os e res po ns ib le fo r th e

tra ns fer of fu nd s. And th e co ur t fo un d no m eri t to Ga n n o n ’s c o mp la in t ab ou t th e

ha nd writ te n rece ip t Bl oc ke r of fere d as ev id en ce of Ly ’s tra ns fer of th e fu nd s to Lin h

Gia. Gan no n, th e co ur t no te d, di d no t sh ow ho w th e ha nd wri t t e n rece ip t was

in ad eq ua te ev id en ce of a de po si t, an d di d no t co m e fo rward wit h an y co un te rv ai li ng

ev id en ce t ha t t he de po si t d id no t o ccu r.

-6-Bas ed on th at reas on in g, th e co ur t gr an te d Bl oc ke r’s m ot io n an d ex pr e ss ly

d i s m is se d Gan no n’s cl ai m s fo r br each of fid uc ia ry du ty, un jus t en ric hm en t, an d

co nv ers io n to th e ex te nt th ey we r e b a s e d on th e $4 15 ,00 0 tra ns fer. Left st an di ng

were th e cl ai m s fo r br each of fid uc ia ry du ty, un jus t en ric hm en t, co nv ers io n, an d ci vi l

co ns pi racy, to th e ex te nt th e cl ai m s res te d on th e al le ge d $4 0,0 00 tra ns fer to Green e.
The n, th e co ur t en te red a te xt or de r gr an ti ng Gan no n’s m ot i o n t o d is m is s th e cas e
wit ho ut pre

jud ic e, an d e nt ered a fi na l ju dg m en t o f di sm is sa l.

At th at po in t, Gan no n de ci de d to st art ad du ci ng ev id en ce, in th e co nt ex t o f a

m ot io n to al te r or am en d th e jud gm en t. In su pp or t of it s m ot io n, Gan no n su bm it te d

two ex hi bi ts : (1 ) a co nt ract en te red in to by Diag eo an d Gan no n Hon g Kon g af te r th e

tra ns fers at is su e, ge ne ral ly m em or ia li zi ng an ag reem en t th at Gan no n wou ld su pp or t

an d gu aran te e Lin h Gia’s pe rfo rm an ce of it s ob li ga ti on s to Diag eo ; an d (2 ) an in vo ic e

fro m Lin h Gia to Diag eo fo r $4 70 ,00 0 fo r “ m ark et in g se rv ic es ,” li st in g Gan no n Hon g

Kon g’s in fo rm at io n un de r “ Ban k de ta il s.” Bl oc ke r ob jecte d th at Gan no n ha d no t, in

su pp or t of it s m ot io n, dem on st rat ed why th e ev id en ce add uc ed co ul d no t ha ve be en
ob ta in ed an d pr od uc ed earl ie r. And

, Bl oc k e r arg ue d, ev en if th e ev id en ce was

co ns id ered

, it was co m

pl et el y c o ns is te nt wit h th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng Bl oc ke r’s

m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Gan no n’s m ot i on to al te r

or am en d. Gan no n ap pe al ed fro m th e or de r gr an ti ng Bl oc k e r ’s m ot io n fo r pa rti al

su m m ary jud gm en t.

II

The is su e ra i s ed on ap pe al is whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng

su m m ary jud gm en t. Bu t be fo re ad dr es si ng th at

, we di gr es s to di sc us s a m at te r

r el at in g to ou r ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on —wh et he r th e fin al jud gm en t fro m whi ch t h e

ap pe al was t ak en was m an uf act ur ed

.

-7-A

The juri sd ic ti on of fed eral co ur ts of ap pe al is ge ne ral ly li m it ed to ap pe al s tak en

fro m “ fin al de ci si on s of th e di st ric t c o u r ts .” 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

. Fo r an or de r to be

fin al

, it m us t en d th e li ti ga ti on on th e m eri ts an d le av e no th in g fo r th e co ur t to do bu t

ex ecu te th e jud gm en t. Acto n v. Ci ty of Co lu m bi a, 43 6 F.3 d 96 9, 97 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ).

Bu t a di sm is sa l wit ho ut pr ejud ic e, co up le d wit h th e in te nt to refi le th e vo lu nt ari ly

di sm is se d cl ai m s aft er an a pp eal of an ot he rwis e-i nt erl oc ut or y or de r, is a cl ear

ev as io n of th e jud ic ia l an d st at ut or y li m it s on ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on

. Great Ri ve rs

Co op . o f Se. Io wa v. Fa rm la nd Ind us ., Inc ., 19 8 F .3d 68 5, 6 88 (8t h C ir. 1 99 9) . W e

st il l ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er su ch an ap pe al

. See id .; se e al so Hop e v. Klab al

, 45 7 F.3 d

78 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Bu t, we ha ve sa id

, in m os t cas es a di st ric t co ur t ab u s e s it s
d i s c r e t io n whe n it fru st rat es th e li m it at io ns on fed eral ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on by

en te rin g a Ru le 41 (a)( 2) or de r di sm is si ng rem ai ni ng cl ai m s wit ho ut pr ejud ic e fo r th e

pu rp os e of faci li ta ti ng th e im m ed ia te ap pe al of an earl ie r in te rlo cu to ry or de r. Mad se n

v. Aud rai n Hea lt h C are, 2 97 F.3d 69 4, 6 97 -9 8 (8 th Cir . 20 02 ); Gre at Riv ers Co op ., 19 8 F .3d at 6 89 -9 0.

Tha t ha vi ng be en sa id

, we are pe rs ua de d th at th os e co nc ern s do no t ap pl y he re.

Our ex am in at io n of th e reco rd su gg es ts th at Gan no n’s m ot io n fo r vo lu nt ary di sm is sa l

was no t an at te m

pt to “ ev ad e th e fin al jud gm en t pri nc ip le an d end -ru n [Fed

. R. Ci v. P.] 54 (b ) by ta ki ng a to ng ue -in -ch eek di sm is sa l of it s rem ai ni ng c l a i ms

. ” See

Mi nn es ot a Pet Bree de rs , In c. v. Sch el l & Kam pe te r, In c., 41 F.3 d 12 42

, 12 45 (8 th Ci r.

19 94 ). Gan no n act ua ll y m ov ed fo r vo lu nt ary di sm is sa l be fo re Bl oc ke r’s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t w a s gr an te d. And am on g th e cl ai m s Gan no n so ug ht to di sm is s
were th e on es no w on ap pe al

. Gan no n ex pl ai ne d, to th e di st ric t co ur t an d th is co ur t

at or al arg um en t, th at it s m ot io n to di sm is s was m ot iv at ed by th e de si re to co ns ol id at e

al l th e li ti ga ti on be twee n Gan no n an d Bl oc ke r in on e act io n. And

, Gan no n’s co un se l

no te d at or al arg um en t, Gan no n co ul d al so un de rcu t Bl oc ke r’s juri sd ic ti on al

arg um en ts by br in gi ng it s cl ai m s in th e st at e co ur t to who se juri sd ic ti on Bl oc ke r ha d

-8-al read y acce de d. Gan no n’s co un se l a s s u r e d th is co ur t th at it ha d no in te nt to refi le

in fed eral co ur t, an d th e reco rd pr ov id es us wit h no r e a s o n to do ub t th at as su ran ce.

In sh or t, th e ci rcu m st an ces he re are in co ns is te nt wit h a co nc lu si on th at G a nn on

so ug ht to m an ip ul at e o u r ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on

. So

, we tu rn to th e m eri ts of it s

ap pe al

.

B

Our an al y si s of th e mer i t s be gi ns wit h fam il ia r pr op os it io ns

. W e rev ie w th e
di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , ap pl y in g th e sa m e st an da rd s as

th e di st ric t co ur t an d vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

no nm ov in g pa rty. McDo na ld v. Ci ty o f S a i n t P au l, 67 9 F.3 d 69 8, 70 3 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 ). Su m

m ary jud gm en t is pr op er if th e pl ead in gs , th e di sc ov ery an d di sc lo su re

m at eri al s on fil e, an d an y affi da vi ts sh ow th at t h e re is no ge nu in e is su e as to an y

m at eri al fact an d th at th e m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. See Ru le

5 6 ( c ) ( 2)

. A m ov an t fo r su m m ary jud gm en t be ars th e in it ia l res po ns ib il it y o f

in fo rm in g th e c o u r t o f th e ba si s fo r th e m ot io n, an d m us t id en ti fy th os e po rti on s of

th e reco rd whi ch th e m ov an t be li ev es de m on st rat e th e ab se nc e of a ge nu in e is su e of

m at eri al fact . Torg ers on v. Ci ty o f Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F .3d 10 31 , 10 42 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)
(en ba nc ). If th e m ov an t do es so , th e no nm ov an t m us t res po n d b y s u bm it ti ng

ev id en ti ary m at eri al s th at se t ou t sp eci fic fact s sh owi ng th at th ere is a ge nu in e is su e

fo r t r i a l

. Id

. The no nm ov an t m us t do m or e th an si m

pl y sh ow th at th ere is so m e

m et ap hysic al do ub t as to th e m at eri al fact s. Id. Where th e rec or d t ak en as a who le

co ul d no t le ad a rat io na l tri er of f act to fin d fo r th e no nm ov in g pa rty, th ere is no

ge nu in e is su e fo r tr ia l. Id

.

Gan no n’s arg um en t is th at th e ev id en ce of fere d by Bl oc ke r was in su ffi ci en t to

su pp or t su m

m ary jud gm en t. Fo r th e m os t pa rt, Gan no n reas se rts th e sa m e co m pl ai nt s

it m ad e to th e di st ric t co ur t. Fo r in st an ce, Gan n o n c l a im s th at Bl oc ke r’s st at em en t

was “ se lf- se rv in g” an d un pe rs ua si ve

. Gan no n co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce at ta ch ed to

-9-Ly ’s st at em en t fail s to do cu m en t ho w Lin h Gia sp en t th e m on ey tra ns ferr ed to it

, or

to pr op erl y do cu m en t th e tra ns fer fro m Ly to Lin h Gia. Gan no n qu es ti on s why on ly

$4 15 ,00 0 of th e $4 70 ,00 0 se nt by Diag eo were tra ns ferr ed to Ly

. And Gan no n arg ue s

th at Hun g’s s ta te m en t co nt ai ne d i na dm is si bl e h ears ay

.

Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we fin d th es e arg um en ts u n p e rs ua si ve

. Bl oc ke r’s

st at em en t, an d t h o s e of Hun g an d Ly

, m ay ha ve be en “ se lf- se rv in g,” bu t th ey were

al so un reb ut te d. Part ie s to ci vi l li ti ga ti on us ua ll y ha ve rel ev an t ev i d e n ce to of fer,

an d whe re th at ev id en c e i s un co nt rad ic te d, it can (an d sh ou ld ) fo rm th e ba si s fo r a jud gm en t. Si m

pl y di sm is si ng su ch ev id en ce as “ se lf- se rv in g” is pr eci se ly th e so rt of

“ ‘m et ap hysic al do ub t’” th at wil l no t su ffi ce to op po se su m m ary jud gm en t. See Sco tt

v. Harri s, 55 0 U.S. 37 2, 38 0 (2 0 0 7 ) ( q u ot in g Mat su sh it a Elec

. In du s. Co

., Ltd

. v.

Zen it h Rad io Co rp ., 47 5 U.S. 57 4, 58 6 (1 98 6) ). And we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t

th at qu es ti on s ab ou t ho w Lin h Gia sp en t th e m on ey are red he rri ng s. W he th er Lin h

Gia fu lfi ll ed it s ag reem en t wit h Diag eo is no t pe rti n e n t t o Gan no n’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t

Bl oc ke r. The fai lu re to fo rward al l $4 70 ,00 0 is an ot he r red he rri ng —Gan no n is on ly

su in g fo r th e fu nd s in th e $4 15 ,00 0 tra ns fer, so th ere is no ne ed fo r Bl oc ke r to

acco un t fo r th e res t of th e fu nd s. And whi le a ha nd writ te n rece ip t fo r a ba nk de po si t

m ay se em un or th od ox , we are no t in a po si ti on to ev al ua t e Viet na m es e ba nk in g

pr act ic es

. The ex hi bi t is en ou gh

, in th e ab se nc e of an y ot he r ev id en ce, to pr ov e wha t

it pu rp or ts to sh ow. If a c om pu te riz ed ba nk reco rd was a va il ab le

, Gan no n was free

to us e th e d is co ve ry

pro ces s t o t ry

an d o bt ai n i t, an d s ee wh at it sh owe d.

N o r do es Gan no n’s ev id en ti ary arg um en t av ai l it

. As a ge ne ral pr in ci pl e, a n

affi da vi t or de cl arat io n us ed to su pp or t or op po se a m ot io n m us t be m ad e on pe rs on al

kn owl ed ge , se t ou t fact s th at wou ld be ad m is si bl e in ev id en ce, an d s h o w th at th e

affi an t or de cl aran t is co m pe te nt to te st ify on th e m at te rs st at ed

. Ru le 56 (c)( 4 ). A

pa r t y m ay ob

ject th at th e m at eri al ci te d to su pp or t or di sp ut e a fact can no t be

pr es en te d in a fo rm th at wou ld be ad m is si bl e in ev id en ce. Ru le 56 (c)( 2)

. And whe n

su ch an ob

jecti on is m ad e, th e b u r d e n is on th e pr op on en t of th e ev id en ce to sh ow

-10-th at th e m at eri al is ad m is si bl e as pre se nt ed or to ex pl ai n th e ad m is si bl e fo rm th at is

an ti ci pa te d. Ru le 56 ad vi so ry co m m it te e’s no te

.

Bu t we rev ie w th e ad m is si on of ev id en ce fo r co ns id erat io n at th e su m m ary jud gm en t st ag e fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. W arn er Bro s. Ent m ’t, In c. v. X One X

Pro ds

., 64 4 F.3 d 58 4, 59 1 (8 th C i r. 20 11 ). And th e st an da rd is no t whe th er th e

ev id en ce at th e su m

m ary jud gm en t st ag e wou ld be ad m is si bl e at tri al —i t is whe th er

i t c o u l d be pr es en te d at tri al in an ad m is si bl e fo rm

. See Ru le 56 (c)( 2)

. Ga n n o n

co m pl ai ns th at Hun g’s st at em en t is pa rtl y ba se d on he ars ay , bu t do es no t ev en at te m pt

to ar g u e th at th e in fo rm at io n co nt ai ne d in Hun g’s st at em en t co ul d no t ha ve be en

pr es en te d in an ad m is si bl e fo rm at tri al

. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t 5

ab us e it s di sc ret io n in ov erru li ng Gan no n’s he ars ay ob jecti on

. See W al ke r v. W ay ne

Cn ty., 85 0 F .2d 43 3, 4 35 (8t h C ir. 1 98 8)

.

Gan n o n a ls o as se rts th at whe n m on ey is tra ns ferr ed fro m on e pa rty in to th e
ba nk acco un t of an ot he r pa rty, it is pr im a faci e ev id en ce th at th e rece iv in g pa rty ha s

so m e le ga l ri gh t t o t ho se fun ds . Gann on cit es no au th or it y for th is pro po si ti on , n or

are we aware of an y

. In an y ev en t, Bl oc ke r pr es en te d ev id en ce of an ex pl an at io n fo r

th e tra ns fers

. Gan no n can no t reb ut th at ev id en ce wit h a ba se le ss “ pr es um pt io n.” Bu t

at th is po in t, Gan no n al so rel ie s on th e ev id en ce it pr es en te d in su pp or t of it s m ot io n

to alt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t. Tha t re qu ire s s om e cl ari fic at io n.

Gan no n’s ap pe ll at e br ie f rep eat ed ly rel i e s u po n th e Gan no n- Diag eo co nt ract

an d Lin h Gia- Diag eo in vo ic e th at it pr es en te d in su pp or t of it s m ot io n to al t er or

am en d. Bu t th at m ot io n was ov erru le d. And Gan no n ne it he r de si gn at ed th at ru li ng

in it s n ot ic e o f ap pe al , n or in cl ud ed th e ru li ng in it s st at em en t of is su es , n or arg ue d

Gan no n’s arg um en t is pa rti cu la rly de fic ie nt be cau se Gan no n it se lf, in su pp or t 5

of it s m ot io n to al te r or am en d, pr es en te d ex act ly th e so rt of ad m is si bl e fo un da ti on al

ev id en ce tha t i t cl ai m s was m is si ng fro m Hun g’s sta te m en t. Bu t m or e on th at la te r.

-11-in it s ap pe ll at e br ie f th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gr an te d th e m ot io n. See Fed

.

R. App

. P. 3( c) an d 28 (a)( 5)

. In ot he r wor ds

, Gan no n di d no t pr es erv e fo r ap pe al an y
is su e wit h res pe ct to th e m ot io n to al te r or am en d. See Hay s v. Hof fm an , 3 25 F.3 d

98 2, 98 7 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ); C & S Acq ui si ti on s Co rp

. v. Nw. Airc raft

, In c., 15 3 F.3 d

62 2, 62 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ). So

, th e ex hi bi ts pr es en te d in su pp or t of th at m ot io n are no t 6

pa rt of t h e s u mm a r y jud gm en t reco rd

. It is no t cl ear whe th er Gan no n fai ls to

ap pr eci at e th e d is ti nc ti on , or s im pl y ho pe s t ha t we wo n’t n ot ic e it

.

Tha t ha vi ng be en sa id

, ev en if co ns id ered

, th e ex hi bi ts do no t su gg es t wha t

G a n n on cl ai m s th ey pr ov e. In st ead

, th ey su pp or t Bl oc ke r’s arg um en ts

. Gan no n
cl ai m s t ha t b ecau se th e Dia ge o- Gan no n c on tra ct pr ov id es fo r Diag eo to “ fro m ti m e

to ti m e at it s so le di sc ret io n pro vi de fu nd in g to Lin h Gi a[,]” th is m ean s th at Diag eo

was m ean t to se nd fu nd s di re ct ly to Lin h Gia. Bu t th e co nt ract was en te red in to two

m on th s aft er th e di sp ut ed tra ns fers

, an d on th e ve ry ne xt pa ge Gan no n “ ack no wled ge s

th at al l mo n i e s p a i d ov er to Lin h Gia to da te by GANNON was [s ic ] pr ov id ed by

DIAGEO.” In ot he r wor ds

, th e co nt ract is no t on ly co ns is te nt wit h Bl oc ke r’s ve rs io n

of ev en ts —i t di rect ly su pp or ts it

. Si m il arl y , Gan no n arg ue s th at th e Lin h Gia- Diag eo

in vo ic e req ue st ed th at Gan no n Hon g Kon g, no t Lin h Gia, be pa id $4 70 ,00 0. Bu t th e

ex hi bi t is se nt un de r Lin h Gia’s le tt erh ead

, t o Diag eo , an d on ly li st s Gan no n’s

in fo rm at io n un de r “ Ban k det ai ls .” Unl es s Gan no n can ex pl ai n why Lin h Gia w ou ld

or de r Diag eo to pa y Gan no n fo r Gan no n’ s m ark et in g se rv ic es , th e ob vi ou s m ean in g

of th e in vo ic e is pr eci se ly co ns is te nt wit h Blo ck er’s evi de nc e—Di ag eo was to se nd

Lin h Gi a $ 47 0,0 00 for m ark et in g s erv ic es , rou te d t hr ou gh Gann on ’s ban k a cco un t.

Nor

, in an y ev en t, wou ld th ere be an y ba si s fo r fin di ng th e di st ric t co ur t 6

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ov erru li ng th e m ot io n; Gan no n pr es en te d no reas on to be li ev e
t h a t it ha d ex erci se d reas on ab le di li ge nc e to ob ta in th e ev id en ce be fo re en try o f jud gm en t, or th at th e ev id en ce wou ld ha ve pr od uc ed a di ffer en t res ul t. See W il li am s v. Ho bb s, 6 58 F.3d 84 2, 8 53 -5 4 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

-12-In su m , Gan no n’s at te m pt to cas t a cl ou d ov er Bl oc ke r’s ev id en ce do es no t

ob sc ur e th e fac t t ha t Bl oc ke r’s ev id en ce, if pr es en te d and un reb ut te d at tria l, woul d

eas il y ha ve warra nt ed a jud gm en t in h i s fav or

. Sp ecu la ti on an d co njec tu re are

in su ffi ci en t to de feat su m m ar y ju d g men t, se e Bl oo m v. Met ro Heart Gro up of St

. Lou is

, In c., 44 0 F.3 d 10 25

, 10 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ), an d sp ecu la ti on an d co njec tu re are

al l th at Gan no n of

fere d. And ev en if we were to co ns id er Gan no n’s b e l at ed ly

pr of fere d ev id en ce, it on ly st ren gt he ns Bl oc ke r’s cas e. Gan no n’s m y ria d arg um en ts
are, i nd iv id ua ll y

an d c ol le ct iv el y , wit ho ut m eri t.

III

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-13-