Opinion ID: 393753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sba support for the summary judgment motion

Text: 13 The trustee also contends that the SBA did not make a sufficient showing to justify summary judgment. The SBA did not file any formal affidavits in support of its motion, but it did file a declaration 5 under penalty of perjury by B. Mitchell Palmer, a loan specialist with the SBA who had been assigned to Southland's case since early 1976. Palmer's declaration outlined the arrangement approved by the court on July 8, 1976, the outstanding balance and accrued interest on Southland's loan, and the SBA's previous efforts to enforce the loan. Palmer concluded that the SBA had exhausted all available collateral, with the exception of the lawsuit settlement proceeds. 14 In addition to the Palmer declaration, the bankruptcy court had before it all of the previous pleadings and papers filed in the suit. The original loan agreement and the stipulation approval of July 8, 1976, were in the court file. The bankruptcy court also was aware of the details of the lawsuit settlement, and had formally approved of the compromise. Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.... Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The bankruptcy court was entitled to determine whether issues of material fact existed based on the record before it; further affidavits were not necessary. See Bryant v. Carleson, 444 F.2d 353, 357-58 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 967, 92 S.Ct. 344, 30 L.Ed.2d 287 (1971). 15