Kubek v. Teachers Retirement, et al
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/8/2011. (br, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
RISOLETA M. KUBEK,
NORA KUBEK JONES,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
This lawsuit is now before the court on defendant
Universal Surety of America’s motion for summary judgment
against plaintiff Risoleta M. Kubek.
For the reasons
that follow, the motion shall be granted.
defendants, alleging that each played a role in depriving
her of benefits she was entitled to receive under the
retirement and life-insurance policies of her deceased
According to Kubek, defendant Nora Kubek
designations by falsely obtaining a “Limited Power of
authorized by the ex-husband and notarized by defendant
Tina Carter, who served as Universal Surety’s principal.
acknowledgment of these two documents.
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question),
1332 (diversity), and 1367 (supplemental).
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
Universal Surety contends that it is entitled to
summary judgment because it has submitted an affidavit of
Carter (now known as Tina Carter McCaskill), in which she
states that she did not acknowledge the documents and, in
Thus, Universal Surety contends
that it has no derivative liability.
In response, Kubek contends that the Carter affidavit
confirms her “allegation that the signature of [Kubek’s
ex-husband] was a forgery.” (Doc. No. 139).
filing of the affidavit in October 2009, Kubek requested
more time for discovery to inquire into the relationship,
if any, between Jones and Carter.
During a July 28,
2011, conference call, Kubek informed the court that
further discovery regarding Universal Surety’s motion was
no longer necessary.
Kubek has submitted no additional
evidence relating to Universal Surety’s liability.
Thus, the undisputed evidence before the court is as
Carter attests that she neither notarized nor
acknowledged the disputed documents.
Kubek has provided
therefore undisputed that Carter did not acknowledge the
Because Universal Surety’s liability is
conditioned upon a finding that Carter failed to perform
the duties of a notary public, there is nothing to
support Kubek’s derivative-liability claim.
An appropriate judgment will be entered granting
Universal Surety’s summary-judgment motion.
Surety’s crossclaim against Carter is still pending
DONE, this the 8th day of August, 2011.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?