Opinion ID: 774852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Post-Petition (Revenge) Compositions

Text: 37 The district court dismissed Cusano's claims for unpaid royalties on his Revenge compositions after (1) construing the Revenge agreements as valid and binding on Cusano because he failed timely to respond to a court order requiring a report on handwriting analysis and a supplemental opposition; and (2) granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment after deeming Cusano's failure to file a timely opposition to constitute consent to the granting of the motion. Cusano contends that a significant disputed issue of fact exists regarding whether he signed the Revenge agreements, and thus summary judgment was improper. We reject this contention and affirm, but do so on the strength of only one of the rulings of the district court. 38 The district court's summary judgment cannot be sustained solely on the ground that Cusano failed to file the supplemental opposition papers, permitting entry of judgment under Local Rule 7.9. A  `local rule that requires the entry of summary judgment simply because no papers opposing the motion are filed or served, and without regard to whether genuine issues of material fact exist, would be inconsistent with Rule 56, [and] hence impermissible under Rule 83.'  United States v. $273,969.04 U.S. Currency, 164 F.3d 462, 464 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc. , 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993)). We may affirm summary judgment, however, on any ground supported by the record. Olson v. Morris, 188 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 1999). 39 We conclude that summary judgment was appropriate because the district court properly construed theRevenge agreements against Cusano, thus leaving no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the Revenge  claims. According to the agreements submitted by Defendants, Cusano assigned all his rights to the Revenge compositions. The district court held the agreements valid and binding against Cusano because he failed to submit a timely handwriting analysis report and, alternatively, because he failed to file an opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion. Cusano eventually submitted a version of the Revenge  agreements that the district court admittedly could not reconcile with the Defendants' version, but he did so only after all relevant deadlines had passed. We interpret the district court's refusal to reassess its earlier grant of summary judgment to Defendants as a decision to strike Cusano's late-submitted evidence for failure to comply with a scheduling order. We review that ruling for abuse of discretion. Munoz v. Orr, 200 F.3d 291, 303 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Cusano inexcusably neglected to respond to the district court's order requiring him to act, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to weigh Cusano's late-submitted evidence at summary judgment. 6 40 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment on claims 1 through 5 for open book account, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and misrepresentation; and claims 9 and 10 for conversion and imposition of constructive trust, to the extent that they are based on theRevenge compositions.