Court Opinion

ID: 9459806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:32:17.267118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:20.763239
License: Public Domain

BARRETT, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
I specially concur in my Brother Brei-tenstein’s opinion. In doing so, I am compelled to note that the trial court’s treatment of the motion to dismiss with attached affidavits which were on file for six months prior to hearing without any responsive or opposing affidavits having been filed or tendered by the plaintiffs, has been interpreted both by the Wyoming State courts and the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming and this writer as constituting authority, without further or other notice, by the court to treat the motion as one for summary judgment. The filing of uncontroverted affidavits attached to the motion to dismiss — unanswered for a period of six months prior to the hearing — has, in Wyoming practice, been treated and considered as the “reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56,” thus eliminating any need on the part of the trial court to give a specific notice of its intention to treat the motion as one for summary judgment. This practice, it seems to me, is in keeping with this Court’s language in Parkinson v. California Company, 233 F.2d 432 (10th Cir. 1956), reading in pertinent part:
“The prior pleadings in support of the motions were not only identified by affidavit, but were shown to have been verified by plaintiff himself. Granted that plaintiff would have had the right on summary judgment to explain this record or to deny its effect by counter-affidavit, he did not elect to do so. Generally speaking, the allegations of a complaint may be pierced by uncontradicted evidentiary matter and in such event, will not be deemed sufficient to raise a genuine fact issue.” (Citations omitted). 233 F.2d at 438.
I would also note that under either a motion to dismiss or one for summary judgment, the relief sought is the same. See Ryan v. Scoggin, 245 F.2d 54 (10th Cir. 1957); National War Labor Board v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 79 U.S. App.D.C. 200, 144 F.2d 528 (1944), cert. denied 323 U.S. 774, 65 S.Ct. 134, 89 L.Ed. 619 (1944). It is difficult to perceive any prejudice in the trial court’s treatment.
In the interest of uniformity of practice throughout our Circuit I specially concur. I do not agree with the majority opinion’s observation that the trial court violated both the spirit and mandates of the applicable rules.