Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould * not be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthinFifth 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10908 Su m m ar y Cal endar
RA CH EL RU I Z, P l a i n ti ff – A p p ell a n t, EST AT E O F BR AD LE Y JAM ES TH O M PSO N , D e c e as e d , I nt e r ve no r–Appe l l ant v. PR UDEN TIAL I NSURANCE COM PA NY OF AM ERI CA, D e fen d a n t –T h ird P a rty P la in tiff

v. KR I S T I NA T HOM P S ON, T h i rd P art y D efen da n t– A pp el l ee.

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas, F ortW ort h D ivi si on USDC No
. 4 : 0 7

- CV- 0 2 9

- BE
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 25, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10908

Circuit Rule47 .5. We review agrant of

su mmaryj u dgme nt denovo. Walt man v. Payne , 53 5 F .3d 3 42, 1 349 (200 8). In addition to granting sum mary judgmentfor Kris tina Thom ps on agains t Ruiz, the trial c ourtdenied Ruiz ’s motion for su mmary ju dgment. We interpret Ru iz ’ s app ell ate brief to challe nge the granting of Thompson’s motion , rath er thanth e de nial of her own , but inanyc a sewewoulduphol d th e trial courto nb othd ecis io n s. 2 A rkan sas A rm y N ati on alG u ard m em ber B radl ey Jam es Th om pson di ed o n O cto b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 , trig g e r in g a p a y o u t on h is S e rv ice m e n ’ s G ro u p L ife I nsur ance A c tpol i c y. App el l antR ac helR ui z w as B r adl ey Th om pson ’ s w i fe a t t h e t i m e of

hi s death. A s executorof hi s es t ate, an d on h e r o w n b e h al f as a pu t ative ben ef

i ci ary of

t h e S G L IApol i cy, R u i z app eal s an order of sum m ary j udg m e ntho l di ng t hatThi r d Pa r t y D e fe nda nt–Appe l l e e K r i s t i na Thom ps o n, B radl ey T h om pson ’ s previ ou s w i fe, i s a 2 5 pe rc e n t b e n efi ci a ryof th e S G L IA p oli cy . R ev i ew i n g th e g ra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo , w e a f f i r m. 1 F ederall aw di rect l y govern s t h e procedu res f or desi gn ati n g ben ef i ci ari es o f a n S G L IA p o lic y . S ee gen er a lly R i dgw ay v . Ri dgway , 4 5 4 U .S
. 4 6 (19 8 1 ). U n der R i dgway , nei t h er s t ate l aw nor st ate c ou rtorders such as di vorce decr ees c a n m o d ifyd e s ig n a te d b e n e fic ia r ie s u n d e rt h e S G L IA
. D oh n ali k v. S om n er , 467 F. 3d 488, 490–91 ( 5t h C i r . 2006)
. The des i gnat ed be nef i c i ar i es c an onl y be
c hanged i f

“ t he pr ope rof

f i ce” r ec eives , pr i ort o t he dea t h of t he i nsur ed, an a p p r o p r ia te s ig n e d d o c u m e n t c h a n g in gth e b e n e fic ia r y . Id
. a t 4 9 0 , 4 9 1
. I tis c le a r fr o m t h e r e c o r d t h a tp r io rto B r a d le ya n d K r is t in a T h o m p s o n ’s d ivo rce o n S ep tem b er 1 6 , 20 0 6 , the pr op er m i l i tary off i ce re c eived an appro priate des i gn a ti on of

be nef i c i ar y f or m , s i gned by B r adl ey, des i gnat i ng K r i st i na a 25 percent benefi ci ary of hi s SG L IApol i cy. Th e parti es di spu t e, how ever, w h et h er h e ch a n g e d th a t d e s ig n a tio n a fte rh e a n d K r is tin a d iv o r c e d
. K ri st i n a T h om pson subm i t t e d a s e vi de nc e a n a f f i da vi tf rom Sergea n tF i rst C l ass Pa u lJ
. M el t on , in w h i ch h e stat es i tw as his res pon sibi l i t y, as a m em ber o f Br ad l e y Thom ps o n’ s N at i o nalG uar d un i t , t o r e vi ew p e r s o nne lf i l e s a ndN o. 08- 10908

3 ascert ai n t h e SG L IAdesi gn ati on of ben ef i ci ary f orm i n f orce u pon t h e death of
a m e m b e ro f th e u n it. H e s ta te s t h a t B r a d le yT h o m p s o n h a d p o s s e s s io n o f h is
ow n personn elf

i l e at t h e t i m e of

hi s death, becau se he n eeded i tt o app l y f or a j ob i n T ex a s. M el t on t r avel ed t o Texas t o a t t end B r adl ey Th om pso n’ s f uneral
a n d re c o v e rth e file
. H e s ta te s th a t “ [t] h e m o s t r e c e n t d e s ig n a tio n fo r m in [ B r adl ey Th om pso n’ s] f i l e i s th e on e . . . i n w hi c h K r i st i na Th om pso n w as d e s ig n a te d a 2 5 p e r c e n t l u m p -s u m b e n e fic ia r y. . . d a te d S e p te m b e r1 9 , 2 0 0 5 .” R u i z presented a docu m en tpu rport i n g t o b e a subseq u en tf orm i n w h i ch Bra dl e y, af

t e rt he divo r c e , s ubs t i t ut e s Rui z f o rK r i s t i na Thom ps o n. I tc o nt ai ns a “ Bra dl e y Thom ps o n” s i gna t ur e , b uti ti s no ts i gne d o ra c kno w l e dg e d i n t he ap pr o pr i at e bo xe s t o i ndi c at e re c e i ptby t he m i l i t ar y. Rui z c l ai m s i ti s a c o pys he fo u n d in B r a d le yT h o m p s o n ’ s tr u c k , a n ds p e c u la te s th a t h e m u s t h a v e tu r n e d in t he o r i gi nalfo r m pr i o rt o hi s dea t h. She al s o c hal l e nge s v ar i o us a s pe c t s o f t he M e lto n a ffid a v it. M o s t im p o r ta n tly s h e a r g u e s th a t M e lto n d o e s n o t c la im pe r s o nalkno w l e dg e s uf f i c i e ntt o ru l e outTho m ps o n ha vi ng t ur ne d i n a s u b s e q u e n tf

o r m. W e nee d not deci de w h et h er t h e obj ect i on s t o t h e M el t on af f i da vi tare va l i d, b e c aus e w e a gr e e w i t h t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt hatR ui z fai l s t o r ai s e a fac ti s s ue on w h et h er a proper off i ce ever received a si gn ed f orm substi t u t i n g R u i z f or K r i s t i na Thom ps o n. Kri s t i na Thom ps o n’ s m o t i o n f o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt appro pri at el y de m ons t r at ed t hats he w as t he pr ope r l y de si gnat ed be nef i c i ar y as o f Se pt e m be r 19 , 20 05
. To s ur vive s um m ar y j udg m e nt i t w as t h en i nc um be nt u pon R u i z, by aff

i da vi t s of

her ow n , d eposi t i on s, an sw ers t o i n t errogat ori es, or ad m i ssi on s o n file, t o dem on st rat e a facti ssue as t o w h et h er t h e proper of f i ce la te rre c e iv e d a s ig n e d fo r m s u b s tit u tin gR u iz a s t h e b e n e fic ia r y . S ee Celot ex Co rp . v . Ca tre tt , 477 U
. S
. 317 , 322 ( 198 6)
. R u i z pl ead ed contrary fact s, bu tfai l ed t o s upp o r tt he m w i t h e vi de nc e . Ac c o r di ng t o he rb r i e f, Rui z ’ s e vi de nc e t hatt he p r o p e ro ff

ic e r e c e iv e d s u c h a c h a n g e o f b e n e fi c ia r yfo r m c o n s is t s o f “A p p e ll a n t ’sN o. 08- 10908

Wenote that Ruiz , supposedly“[f]or purposes of brevity and convenience ,” declined 2 to include “a formal statement of the facts” in her brief. She likewise f ai le dtoat t ach supportingrec ord excerpts or otherwise cite supportingevidence in the recor d. She argues she raise d fact i ssues “b ased uponth e pl eadings alone .” 4 op i n i on ” t h a t M elt on “w a s ea rl i er p erso n a l l y i n vo l ve d
. . . w i th a b scon d i n g w i th andl o s i ng o ri nt e nt i o nal l y l o s i ng o rde s t r o yi ng t he o r i gi n al cop y o f t he D e c e d e n t’s s ig n e d ch a n g e o f b e n e fic ia r yfo r m w h ic h h e h a d e x e c u te d in b e h a lf of hi s n ew w i fe. ” R u i z ci t es no evi den ce t h at B radl ey T h om pson ever gave such 2
a f orm to M elt on or th a t M elt on w ou l d h a ve be en the ap p r o p r ia te p e rson to receive t h e for m a t t h e t i m e, nor an y evi den ce t h at M el t on l ostor abscon ded
w i t h such a f

orm . Sh e st ates n o possibl e m ot ive f or such cond u ct . S h e does not c o n te s t t h a t s h e d e c lin e d to d e p o s e M e lto n , a n d s h e c ite s n o e v id e n c e th a t h e is
an ythi n g ot h er t h an an up st an di n g servi cem an . I n l i gh tof t h ese om i ssi on s, her c o pyo f t he pur po r t e d c hang e o f b e ne f i c i ar y f o r m do e s no tc r e at e a fa c ti s s ue u n d e r th e str ict sta n d a rd s o f R i dgway
. Rui z ’ s r e m ai ni ng ar gum e nt s a ga i ns ts um m ar y j udg m e nta re w i t ho ut me r i t . S h e a t t e mp t s t o av o i d Kr i s t i n a T h o mp s o n ’ s e v i d e n c e b yp r o p o s i n gwe a p p lyv a r io u s ca n o n s o f s ta tu to r yco n s tr u c tio n to a n o r d e rb e lo w , to a b s u r d ly c o nc l ude t hatt he t r i alc o ur tm e antto gran t l e av e t o f i l e a m o t i o n, b utno tt he
accom pa n yi n g bri ef

an d exh ibi t s. W e decl i n e t o do so; t h e t ri alcourt ’ s c on t rary in te n t a p p e a r s fr o m th e o r d e rits e lf, co m m o n s e n s e , a n d s u b s e q u e n t r u lin g s . W e al so r ej ec tR ui z’ s ar gum entt hatvar i ous fac t s sho ul d be dee m ed adm i t t ed by K ri st i n a T h om pson based on fai l u re t o den y assert i on s i n R u i z’ s c ross - cl ai m s. The t r i alc o ur tpr o pe r l y c o nc l ude d t hatt he c r o s s - c l ai m s w e r e “ no m o r e t han t he i n verse of

t h e cr oss- cl ai m asser t ed by [ K ri st i n a] T h om pson . ” R u i z ha d n ot i ce of K ri st i n a T h om pson ’ s c on t rary asser t i on s, an d theref ore c an n otprevai lbased
s o le lyo n u n s u p p o r te d p le a d in g s . Se e Tr o t t e r v . Jac k Ande r s o n Ent e r s . , I nc . , 818 F .2d 4 3 1 , 4 3 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 7 ).N o. 08- 10908

5 T h e r u l i n gb e l o w i s t h e r e f o r e A F F I RMED.