Opinion ID: 1238678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Additional Policies?

Text: We need only briefly address one final issue, and that is whether the district court should have considered certain additional insurance policies the Goderstads acquired after selling their home and moving to Colorado. The district court declined to consider the issue because the Goderstads made only fleeting reference to these policies  indeed, presented no evidence pertaining to them  at the time the court took up American Family's motion for summary judgment. As we have said many times before, a motion for summary judgment requires the responding party to come forward with the evidence that it has  it is `the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit.' Koszola v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 385 F.3d 1104, 1111 (7th Cir.2004) (quoting Schacht v. Wis. Dep't of Corr., 175 F.3d 497, 504 (7th Cir.1999), rev'd on other grounds, Higgins v. Mississippi, 217 F.3d 951 (7th Cir.2000)). The district court's decision was manifestly correct. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY the Goderstads' motion to certify a question to the Wisconsin Supreme Court under Circuit Rule 52.