Opinion ID: 162918
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to allow further discovery

Text: 46 Lastly, P & G contends that the district court erred when it failed to give P & G the requisite notice that it should present evidence on the factual issue of whether Amway knew or had reason to know that the Defendant Distributors were making false statements about P & G's commercial activities. P & G maintains that the district court erred in sua sponte converting the issue of Amway's status as a party into a summary judgment motion. P & G purports to have been blindsided by the district court's unwarranted rush to judgment. Aplt's Br. at 38. This argument is unsubstantiated by the record. 47 After remand, and at P & G's request, the district court set a briefing schedule and heard further argument on this issue. Both parties submitted supplemental briefs as to the legal issue of whether any claim against Amway might survive the remand. P & G now insists that it should have been able to present further evidence at this time, evidence that was relevant to previously asserted and unsuccessfully litigated issues. 48 While the practice of granting summary judgment sua sponte is not favored, we hold that any alleged lack of notice was not prejudicial to P & G. Scull v. New Mexico, 236 F.3d 588, 600-01 (10th Cir. 2000). P & G is merely seeking to reargue issues we have already decided. Cf. Hand v. Matchett, 957 F.2d 791, 794 n. 2 (10th Cir.1992) (concluding that the district court's sua sponte ruling on summary judgment motion was proper when the parties had had adequate opportunity to address all pertinent issues). No further factfinding or discovery was needed for the district court to determine whether Amway remained as a party after the remand. Cf. Barber, 841 F.2d at 1070 (holding that the district court violated the mandate rule where appellate court remanded for resolution of a narrow factual issue, and the district court reopened the case to accept the records of and testimony concerning a number of [witnesses] not mentioned in this court's prior opinion and ostensibly not a part of the first trial) (internal quotation marks omitted). As we have noted, the district court on remand is free to pass upon any issue which was not expressly or impliedly disposed of on appeal. Newball, 803 F.2d at 826.