Chabrowski, et al v. Litwin et al

Filing 136

ORDER denying Chabrowski's #122 Motion for Summary Judgment and #133 Motion for oral argument. FURTHER ORDERED reaffirming the pretrial deadlines contained in the Court's March 2, 2018 #119 Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 10/9/2018. (MMO)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Derek Jahn Chabrowski, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-03766-PHX-DLR

Wlodzimierz Jan Litwin, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Before the Court is Plaintiff Derek Chabrowski’s (“Chabrowski”) motion for

17

summary judgment. (Doc. 122.) The motion is fully briefed.1 (Doc. 126.) For the

18

following reasons, Chabrowski’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

19

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any

20

material fact and, viewing those facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party,

21

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The parties also have fully briefed Chabroswki’s separate motion for oral
argument on summary judgment. (Docs. 133-135.) This briefing strikes the Court as a
wasteful use of resources. This District’s Local Rules require a party requesting oral
argument to include the words “Oral Argument Requested” immediately below the title
of the motion. In practice, however, it is not uncommon for parties to neglect to do so
and to instead submit either a notice of errata, amended motion, or other type of separate
request for oral argument, which is what happened here. The Court has never before had
litigants quarrel over the propriety of a party’s separate request for oral argument,
probably because simply requesting oral argument does not guarantee that the Court will
permit one. Instead, the Court’s decision to set oral argument depends on whether it
believes oral argument would be useful. The Court denies Chabrowski’s request for oral
argument not because of any technical non-compliance with the Local Rules, but
because, after reviewing the parties’ briefing and the record, the Court finds oral
argument unnecessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); LRCiv. 7.2(f).

1

moving for summary judgment, the burden of proof initially rests with the moving party

2

to present the portions of the record he believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine

3

issue of material fact and the legal basis for his motion. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

4

U.S. 317, 323 (1986); see also LRCiv. 56.1(a) (requiring the moving party to submit a

5

“memorandum of law”). If the movant fails to carry his initial burden of production, the

6

non-movant need not produce anything further and the motion for summary judgment

7

fails.

8
9

Here, Chabrowski’s motion for summary judgment consists of a separate
statement of facts and his personal declaration.

(Docs. 123, 124.)

Missing from

10

Chabrowski’s motion is a memorandum of law explaining why, as a matter of law, he is

11

entitled to summary judgment. Even assuming that there are no genuine disputes of

12

material fact, which the Court seriously doubts after reviewing Defendant’s controverting

13

statement of facts, Chabrowski fails to explain why he is entitled to judgment as a matter

14

of law. Accordingly,

15
16

IT IS ORDERED that Chabrowski’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 122)
and motion for oral argument (Doc. 133) are DENIED.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reaffirming the pretrial deadlines contained in the

18

Court’s March 2, 2018 Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference (Doc. 119), of which all

19

parties should have a copy.

20

Dated this 9th day of October, 2018.

21
22
23
24

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

-2-