*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50600

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: H. E. & I., INC.,

Debtor

_________________________________

ABC FIRE PROTECTION CO. INC.; AMERICAN DRYWALL & ACOUSTICS, INC.;

BILL JAMES CONSTRUCTION, INC.; BOWMAN TILE AND MARBLE CO., INC.;

BUTCH SMITH PLUMBING; G & J CONSTRUCTION, INC.; LARRY MITCHELL WALL

COVERINGS; MALL AIR AND GEORGIA, INC.; SCOTT ELECTRIC CO. OF

WILMINGTON, INC.; TALLAHASSEE ELECTRIC SERVICES; ROBERT MATOCK

ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Appellants,

VERSUS

FISRT NATIONAL BANK OF FAIRFIELD,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-96-CV-425)

April 30, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The IntervenerS/Plaintiffs, referred to collectively as the
2

Trade Contractors, appeal from a summary judgment entered for the

First National Bank of Fairfield, Texas (“the Bank”). We affirm.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Norman

v. Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994). We review the

district court's order denying additional discovery for abuse of

discretion. See Wichita Falls Office Assocs. v. Banc One Corp.,

978 F.2d 915, 918 (5th Cir. 1992). 

H. E. & I., Inc. (“Debtor”) was a general contractor that

constructed and improved retail stores. The Debtor executed three

revolving line of credit notes payable to the Bank. The Bank was

a secured creditor of the Debtor. The Debtor filed a voluntary

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Proceeding on December 22, 1993. Two years

later, the Trustee filed an adversary proceeding alleging that

payments made by the Debtor to the Bank on the revolving line of

credit notes within ninety days prior to the filing of Debtor's

Chapter 7 proceeding were preferences, fraudulent conveyances or

were “trust funds to be used to pay subcontractors.” 

The Trade Contractors intervened, asserting causes of action

against the Bank for breach of trust/fiduciary duty; constructive

fraud; conversion; civil conspiracy; fraudulent conveyances; and

quantum meruit. The Trade Contractors claim that the Debtor paid

its revolving line of credit notes with “construction trust funds”

and that the Bank acted wrongfully in accepting the payments. The

Bank filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it had no

knowledge of the trust character of the funds, that it was not a

trustee of the funds and that it was a good faith purchaser for
3

value of the funds, and therefore owed no duties to the Trade

Contractors. The Bank's summary judgment evidence was comprised of

the affidavit of a Bank officer with attached exhibits. The Trade

Contractors submitted no competent summary judgment evidence to

refute the Bank's position. The court found no genuine issue of

material fact and granted summary judgment for the Bank.

Trade Contractors assert on appeal that the court abused its

discretion in denying their motions to reschedule deadlines,

thereby foreclosing further discovery that they contend was

necessary to respond to the Bank's summary judgment motion. In

order to obtain a continuance of a summary judgment motion for the

purpose of further discovery, the non-movant must request extended

discovery prior to the court's ruling on summary judgment, provide

notice to the court that further discovery pertaining to summary

judgment is sought, and explain specifically how the requested

discovery pertains to the pending motions. See 7547 Corp. v.

Parker & Parsley Dev. Partners, 38 F.3d 211, 220 (5th Cir. 1994).

The record reveals that the Trade Contractors failed to fulfill

these obligations. The parties' joint motion to reschedule

deadlines, filed after the summary judgment motion had been on file

for seven months and only a week before summary judgment was

granted, did not state that Trade Contractors sought discovery

pertaining to the question of the Bank's knowledge. After the

district court granted summary judgment, the Trade Contractors

advised the court for the first time that they sought to obtain

discovery on the issue. We therefore conclude that the district
4

court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery and

reconsideration of its summary judgment decision. See id.

 Trade Contractors' remaining points of error concern the

appropriateness of the grant of summary judgment, given the state

of the evidence concerning the Bank's knowledge. Having reviewed

the record, we conclude that there were no genuine issues of

material fact and summary judgment was appropriate. See

International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257,

1265-66 (5th Cir. 1991).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the summary judgment granted

for the Bank.

AFFIRMED.