Kennedy v. Katlou, LLC
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 12 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 8/24/2016. (AMB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
PATRICIA
individually,
KENNEDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:16-cv-96-FtM-29CM
KATLOU, LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. #12) filed on June 8, 2016.
filed a Response (Doc. #15) on June 22, 2016.
Defendant
For the reasons set
forth below, the Court denies the motion without prejudice.
I.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint (Doc. #1) on February 3, 2016 for
injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189.
Defendant filed an
Answer (Doc. #9) on March 1, 2016, denying plaintiff’s allegations
and asserting several affirmative defenses.
On June 8, 2016,
plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #12), to which
defendant filed a Response (Doc. #15) on June 22, 2016.
In its
Response, defendant asserts that plaintiff’s motion should be
denied because: 1) it is premature as the parties have not had
sufficient time to conduct discovery; 2) it is not supported by
admissible evidence; and 3) it does not sufficiently establish the
standard that applies to the subject property.
(Id.)
The Court
agrees with defendant that plaintiff’s motion is premature and
need not reach the merits of the subsequent arguments.
II.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
summary judgment is appropriate if a “movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
A
party asserting that a fact cannot be genuinely disputed must
support the assertion with materials in the record, including
depositions,
documents,
other materials.
affidavits,
interrogatory
answers,
or
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c)(1)(A).
Rule 56(d) expressly provides that the Court may deny a motion
for summary judgment if a non-movant shows by affidavit that “it
cannot present essential facts to justify its opposition.”
R. Civ. P. 56(d).
Fed.
However, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the
filing of an affidavit is not required to invoke the protection of
the rule.
Snook v. Tr. Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859
F.2d 865, 871 (11th Cir. 1988).
The party opposing the motion for
summary judgment bears the burden of alerting the Court to any
outstanding discovery, but a written representation by the party’s
lawyer still falls within the spirit of the rule, and “[f]orm is
not to be exalted over fair procedures.”
- 2 -
Id. (citation omitted).
Rule 56 requires adequate time for discovery prior to entry
of summary judgment.
(1986).
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
Entry of summary judgment before the nonmoving party has
had time to conduct discovery constitutes reversible error.
WSB-TV v. Lee, 842 F.2d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 1988).
See
A party has
the right to challenge the factual evidence presented by the moving
party by conducting sufficient discovery so as to determine if it
may furnish opposing affidavits.
Snook, 859 F.2d at 870.
Ruling
on the merits of a case in which a motion for summary judgment has
been prematurely filed would frustrate the non-movant’s right to
factually investigate.
Blumel v. Mylander, 919 F. Supp. 423, 429
(M.D. Fla. 1996).
III.
Plaintiff’s motion is premature as the parties have not had
adequate
time
to
exchange
discovery.
Plaintiff
filed
her
Complaint (Doc. #1) on February 3, 2016, defendant was served (Doc.
#8) on February 9, 2016, and defendant filed an Answer (Doc. #9)
on March 1, 2016.
A few months later, on June 9, 2016, plaintiff
filed her Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Doc. #12.)
At that time,
the parties had not yet submitted a Case Management Report (Doc.
#15, p. 1), and it was not until recently, on August 22, 2016,
that a Case Management Report was filed (Doc. #16).
In addition,
at the time the summary judgment motion was filed, discovery was
in its very early stages and there were outstanding discovery
- 3 -
requests, to which responses were not even due yet.
p. 2.)
(Doc. #15,
If the Court were to rule on the merits of plaintiff’s
summary judgment motion, such ruling would frustrate defendant’s
right to factually investigate and rebut the claims.
Rule 56
explicitly affords the non-moving party the opportunity to conduct
discovery and refute the allegations.
For these reasons, the Court finds plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. #12) premature.
As such, the Court hereby
denies plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice
to the re-filing after the parties have had sufficient opportunity
to engage in discovery.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #12) is DENIED
without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __24th__ day of
August, 2016.
Copies:
Counsel of Record
- 4 -
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?