Court Opinion

ID: 9507648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:24:27.159935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:21.908282
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
In D. A. Davidson’s memo in support of motion to dismiss, filed June 28, 1982, with the clerk of District Court, counsel argued the legal effect of the affidavit and exhibits previously served on Gebhardt’s counsel.
In D. A. Davidson’s reply memo, filed July 29, 1982, counsel again argued the legal effects of the affidavit and exhibits, and, on page one, specifically referred to Rule 56.
On August 18, 1982, at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Gebhardt’s counsel made the following comment: “If I might, on the summary judgment or motion to dismiss Rule 12b, I think. . .” (Transcript p. 5, line 12), and later declined the Court’s offer to submit additional briefs.
In my view, Gebhardt’s counsel had sufficient opportunity to submit all materials he deemed appropriate in response to D. A. Davidson’s affidavit and exhibits, and should have known that the Court was proceeding under Rule 56.
*392Under the facts of this case I would not require the District Court to affirmatively notify the parties that the conversion to Rule 56 had been effected, and would, therefore, affirm the District Court.