DLC Dermacare LLC v. Castillo et al

Filing 205

ORDER granting #189 Motion for Summary Judgment agsainst Defendants Sixta Castillo, R.N. and Juan Castillo-Plaza, M.D. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/31/11.(SJF)

Download PDF
  1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 DLC Dermacare, LLC, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 No. CV10-0333 -PHX-DGC ORDER vs. Sixta Castillo, RN, et al., Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 On July 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment against Defendants Sixta Castillo, R.N., and Juan Castillo-Plaza, M.D. Doc. 189. Pro se Defendants have filed no response, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv. 56.1(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). On September 26, 2011, the Court ordered pro se Defendants to file a response no later than October 7, 2011. Doc. 197. Defendants have not complied.1 Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part: When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i), “such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion.”   1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (emphasis added); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322- 2 23 (1986) (holding that summary judgment is appropriate against a party who “fails to 3 make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s 4 case”); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) 5 (“When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do 6 more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”). 7 Plaintiff’s arguments as to breach of contract and Defendants’ failure to show a 8 material factual dispute are persuasive in the absence of Defendants’ opposition. 9 Plaintiff’s other arguments are also colorable. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for 10 summary judgment because the undisputed evidence offered in support of the motion 11 “show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [Defendants are] 12 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 13 322-23. 14 IT IS ORDERED: 15 1. 16 17 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Defendants Sixta Castillo, R.N. and Juan Castillo-Plaza, M.D. (Doc. 189) is granted. Dated this 31st day of October, 2011. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‐ 2 ‐ 

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?