Opinion ID: 169956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Receiver’s M otion for Summary Judgment

Text: M r. Hipple also challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Receiver, arguing primarily that EPI’s post-October 15, 2001, earnings either derived from sources independent of M errill Scott or were subsequently returned to M errill Scott. W e express no opinion as to the factual or legal correctness of the district court’s merits determination. W e conclude, however, that its award of summary judgment was premature given the outstanding indispensable party issue. Rule 19 requires the district court to make a preliminary determination as to the necessity of EPI’s presence in the action, the feasibility of joinder, and ultimately, whether the action can proceed in equity and good conscience with the parties present if EPI cannot be joined. See Symes v. Harris, 472 F.3d 754, 760 (10th Cir. 2006). EPI was apparently the sole source of income for both M errill Scott and IPA. And while the district court referred to it as a M errill Scott entity and “captive law firm,” R. vol. X, doc. 164 at 3-4, it never explained the meaning of these characterizations or made any specific fact findings concerning the extent of EPI’s independence, if any, from M errill Scott, particularly after M r. Hipple became a managing director. This analysis, which is necessary to resolve the indispensable party issue, will likely affect the court’s merits analysis as well. W e therefore vacate the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Receiver and remand for reconsideration in light of its findings on the issue of EPI’s status as an indispensable party. -15- D. M r. Hipple’s Cross-M otion For Summary Judgment Finally, M r. Hipple claims that the district court abused its discretion in striking his motion for summary judgment as untimely. W e reject his challenge because the motion was clearly late. On December 17, 2003, the district court entered an order setting December 22 as the dispositive motion cut-off date. The parties later consented to extending the deadline by an additional thirty days, to January 22, 2004, and the Receiver filed his motion for summary judgment on that date. 4 On January 20, M r. Hipple filed another motion, over the Receiver’s objection, requesting a further extension to February 16. He did not file his motion for summary judgment, however, until M ay 27, a full three months past the last extension that he requested. W e review district court decisions pertaining to docket management and supervision of the pretrial phase of litigation for abuse of discretion. See Beaird v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 145 F.3d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1998). The court’s decision to strike M r. Hipple’s summary judgment motion falls within this framework. See Arakaki v. Lingle, 477 F.3d 1048, 1069 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding district court did not abuse its discretion in striking counter motion for sum mary judgment). Under this standard, “a trial court’s decision will not be disturbed 4 W e reject M r. Hipple’s contention that the Receiver’s motion was also late because it was filed after January 16, 2004. This argument is nothing less than spurious given that M r. Hipple specifically requested that the deadline be further extended to January 22, and the Receiver filed a “Notice of Nonopposition” to this date. R. vol. VII, doc. 115. -16- unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the lower court has made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.” Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1164 (quotation and alteration omitted). M r. Hipple has not demonstrated that the district court’s decision to strike his motion for summary judgment constituted an abuse of discretion. Its decision on this score is therefore affirmed.