Echon et al v. Sackett et al

Filing 116

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE that 106 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Justin Echon, Maribel Echon, Esmeraldo Villanueva Echon, Jr. be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. By Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang on 9/20/2017. (Attachments: # 1 - (7) Unpublished case law) (nywlc1)

S.E.C. v. Capital Holdings, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 1660541

2006 WL 1660541
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, D. Colorado.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
CAPITAL HOLDINGS, L.L.C., et al., Defendants,
and
Fast Track L.L.C., et al., Defendants
Solely for the Purpose of Equitable Relief.
Civil No. 03–cv–00923–REB–CBS.
|
June 12, 2006.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Marshall Milby Gandy, U.S. Securities & Exchange
Commission, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff.
Matthew T. Kirsch, U.S. Attorney's Office, Denver, CO,
for Intervenor Plaintiff.
Heritage America, c/o Michael Vallone, Orland Park, IL,
Pro Se.
Jeffrey D. Mitchell, Spokane, WA, Pro Se.
John J. Schlabach Spokane, WA, Pro Se.
Michael Vallone, Orland Park, IL, Pro Se.
National Marketing Solutions, LLC, North West Group,
LLC, Spokane, WA, Pro Se.
Declan Joseph O'Donnell, Declan Joseph O'Donnell,
P.C., Castle Rock, CO, Robert T. McAllister, Daniel
Charles Stiles, Isaacson Rosenbaum, P.C., David A.
Zisser, Isaacson Rosenbaum, P.C., Matthew T. Kirsch,
U.S. Attorney's Office, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
Glen Andrew Anderson, Washington State Attorney
General's Office, Olympia, WA, for Movant.

ORDER DENYING JOHN SCHLABACH'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

*1 The matter before me is John Schlabach's Motion for
Summary Judgment [# 232], filed May 11, 2006. I deny the
motion.
As an initial matter, I note that Schlabach's motion fails
to comply with REB Civil Practice Standard V.H.3.b.,
which sets forth the formatting requirements for summary
judgment motions filed in this court. The motion would
be subject to being stricken on that basis alone.
More importantly, the violation here is so profound
that I cannot meaningfully review the request for relief.
Schlabach has failed to even identify any of the claims or
defenses as to which he seeks summary judgment, much
less set forth the elements of any such claim or defense
or the party who bears the burden of proof. Indeed,
Schlabach fails to cite to even a single legal precedent
—other than those outlining the familiar standard for
summary judgment—in support of his motion. See
D.C.COLO.LCIVR. 7.1 C. Nor has Schlabach specifically
delineated how the evidence he attaches to his motion
warrants the entry of summary judgment in his favor. 1
It is Schlabach's duty as the movant to specifically set
forth the facts and law that arguably entitle him to relief.
I am neither required nor inclined to peruse the record
in this case in search of evidence that might support
his motion. See U.S. v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955,956(7th
Cir.1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles
buried in briefs.”). See also Ogden v. San Juan County,
32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.1994) (litigant's pro se status
does not excuse failure to follow fundamental rules of
procedure), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 750 (1995).
I acknowledge that, because Schlabach is proceeding pro
se, I must construe his motion more liberally and hold
it to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings or
papers drafted by lawyers. See Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)). Nevertheless, pro se litigants
still bear responsibility for developing the factual bases
of their requests for relief, see Whitney v. State of New
Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173–74 (10th Cir.1997); Hall, 935
F.2d at 1110, and it is neither necessary nor appropriate
for the court to act as an advocate for a pro se party
by making his case for him, Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
Accordingly, Schlabach's motion for summary judgment
must be denied.

BLACKBURN, J.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

1

S.E.C. v. Capital Holdings, L.L.C., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2006)
2006 WL 1660541

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, that John Schlabach's
Motion for Summary Judgment [# 232], filed May 11,
2006, is DENIED.

All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1660541

Footnotes

1

Plaintiff's failure to respond to the motion, although perplexing, is not dispositive. A party is not entitled to a “default”
summary judgment. See Murray v. City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma, 312 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir.2002).

End of Document

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2