Opinion ID: 202705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plenary Hearing

Text: 42 GVI argues that it was entitled to a plenary hearing on its equitable and monetary claims, and that the district court did not provide it with one. The district court treated the Receiver's Report and Recommendation much like a summary judgment: it determined that there were no material disputes of fact and resolved the questions of law. Cf. City Equities Anaheim v. Lincoln Plaza Dev. Co. (In re City Equities Anaheim, ) 22 F.3d 954, 958 (9th Cir.1994) (Like many litigants, Lincoln sought to end a suit based on the absence of any disputed material facts. In this respect, its motion was akin to a motion for summary judgment.). Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Vives v. Fajardo, 472 F.3d 19, 21 (1st Cir.2007). We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Id. 43 GVI's claim that it was entitled to a plenary hearing cannot succeed because it fails to identify any disputed issues of fact. This was ultimately the same position GVI took in the district court. The court ordered GVI to put all of its objections (both factual and legal) to the SBA Receiver's Report and Recommendation in one single motion. GVI failed to raise any issues of fact in this motion. At the hearing on GVI's motion, when asked whether it had any additional evidence, GVI stated Not in addition to what's already been submitted. Although GVI later asked for an evidentiary hearing on its equitable and monetary claims, after the court denied the request, GVI retreated and instead stated that what we're talking about here and now, your Honor, are issues of law. 44 In light of GVI's on-the-record position that there were no factual disputes, and in light of GVI's inability to now point to evidence that would establish a disputed issue of material fact, we conclude that the district court did not err in approving the SBA Receiver's report and denying GVI an evidentiary hearing on its claims. See United States v. Ianniello, 824 F.2d 203, 207 (2d Cir.1987) (finding no need for a plenary hearing where the court gave defendants ample opportunity to rebut the government's case).