International Academy of Business and Financial Management, Limited et al v. Mentz et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 44 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 1/9/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00463-CMA-BNB
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BUSINESS AND
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LIMITED,
BRETT KING, and
GEOFFREY BARING,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GEORGE S. MENTZ, and
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to
Liability filed June 24, 2013. (Doc. # 41.) Defendants responded to this motion on July
31, 2013 (Doc. # 50), and Plaintiffs replied on August 14, 2013 (Doc. # 51). Upon
review of the parties’ briefing and the evidence referenced therein, the Court determines
that genuine issues of material fact preclude the Court from granting the summary
judgment motion. 1

1

With regard to counterclaims three through seven, Plaintiffs relied solely on their previously
filed motion to dismiss as a basis for dismissing those claims rather than asserting arguments
under the summary judgment standard. (See Doc. # 44, at 17-18.) Defendants correctly
responded that those arguments were rendered moot by this Court’s order denying the motion
to dismiss, entered on July 17, 2013 (Doc. # 48.) Then, in the reply, Plaintiffs asserted new
arguments regarding why the Court should grant summary judgment on those claims. The
Court declines to address these arguments. See United States v. Mora, 293 F.3d 1213, 1216

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 44) is DENIED.
DATED: January

09 , 2013
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

(10th Cir. 2002) (citing Codner v. United States, 17 F.3d 1331 n.2 (10th Cir. 2002), and Lyons
v. Jefferson Bank & Trust, 994 F.2d 716, 724 (10th Cir. 1993)) (the court need not address
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief); Rackhouse Pub, LLC v. Proximo Spirits,
Inc., No. 13-CV-00477-MSK-KMT, 2013 WL 5609347 (D. Colo. Oct. 11, 2013) (“It is axiomatic
that courts will usually refuse to consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief,
primarily because it deprives the opponent of the opportunity to address it.”).

2