Opinion ID: 2626065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Prematurity of Summary Judgment

Text: [¶ 36] In its final issue, M & M asserts the summary judgment was premature because discovery had not been completed. FFI filed its complaint on March 10, 2008. FFI filed its summary judgment motion ten months later, on January 13, 2009. On February 11, 2009, M & M filed a motion to extend the time for filing its response. The district court granted the motion, giving M & M until February 23, 2009 to respond. The district court scheduled a summary judgment hearing for March 17, 2009. M & M filed its response to FFI's motion on March 2, 2009. [¶ 37] On March 9, 2009, M & M filed a motion to vacate the hearing date on the ground that discovery was not completed. The same day, M & M filed a motion to amend its answer to add as affirmative defenses that FFI failed to mitigate its damages and repudiated the contract by failing to collect on the past due accounts. M & M also filed a motion to compel FFI to respond to discovery. According to M & M's appellate brief, the district court denied the motion to vacate the hearing and never ruled on the motion to amend the answer. FFI responded to M & M's discovery request before the hearing. The district court held the hearing as scheduled and orally granted summary judgment for FFI. [¶ 38] A district court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for continuance, and absent a clear abuse of discretion, we will not disturb its ruling. Abraham v. Great Western Energy, LLC, 2004 WY 145, ¶ 16, 101 P.3d 446, 454 (Wyo.2004). When a district court denies a motion for continuance, we will find an abuse of discretion only upon concluding the ruling is so arbitrary as to deny the moving party due process. Id. The moving party has the burden to prove actual prejudice and a violation of his rights. Id. In reviewing a denial, we look at the particular circumstances of the case and the reasons presented to the district court when the motion was made. Id. [¶ 39] The record here shows that by February 23, 2009, the only discovery requests FFI had not responded to satisfactorily in M & M's view involved account notes or transaction ledgers for four customers and any collection expenses FFI incurred. Prior to the summary judgment hearing, FFI responded to the latter request as follows: Other than telephone expense and time expended by Mr. Shaw contacting various delinquent account holders, neither of which have been quantified, there are no other expenses. ... FFI responded to the former request by stating that M & M was in possession of the information on four of the accounts and FFI received payment of an identified amount on one other account. [¶ 40] On March 17, 2009, the same day as the summary judgment hearing, M & M signed a withdrawal of its motion to compel discovery, stating that FFI had satisfactorily amended its discovery responses. M & M filed the withdrawal on March 23, 2009. Given M & M's statement that it was satisfied with the discovery responses, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the motion for continuance. Whether or not the district court was aware on the date it denied the motion that discovery had been satisfactorily completed, the record reflects that M & M was satisfied with the responses as of the hearing date. M & M's argument that discovery was not complete and so its motion for continuance should have been granted is not borne out by the record. [¶ 41] Affirmed.