National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Classic Yacht Service, Inc. et al

Filing 75

OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 58 , 65 Motions for Summary Judgment. See Opinion and Order for further details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 4/25/2019. (BLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
NATIONAL
UNION
FIRE
INSURANCE
COMPANY
OF
PITTSBURGH, PA, as subrogee
of Kevin Adell and Adell
Properties, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:18-cv-153-FtM-99UAM

CLASSIC YACHT SERVICE, INC.,
a Florida corporation and
JUBILEE SERVICES, LLC, a
Florida limited liability
company, as successor in
interest
to
Dan
House
Electric, Inc.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of the parties’
Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. ##58, 65.)

In support

of its Response and Cross Motion (Doc. #65), plaintiff submitted
the Sworn Declaration of attorney Alvaro L. Mejer pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), stating that certain facts
in

opposition

to

defendant

Jubilee

Services,

LLC’s

(Jubilee)

Motion for Summary Judgment could not yet be presented because a
Motion for Sanctions was pending against Jubilee as a result of

Jubilee’s willful failure to obey the Court’s previous Order
granting a Motion to Compel. 1

(Doc. #68.)

On April 11, 2019, the Magistrate Judge agreed that Jubilee
had

failed

to

sufficiently

respond

to

plaintiff’s

requests but declined to award sanctions.
Magistrate
allowed

Judge

Jubilee

responses.

(Id.)

reopened
until

discovery

April

19,

for

2019

(Doc. #72.)

limited

to

discovery

amend

purposes
its

The
and

discovery

Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Sanctions

(Doc. #74) on April 20, 2019, arguing that Jubilee continued to
fail its discovery obligations.
I.
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.”

1

Id. (citation omitted).

Notably, Jubilee’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #58)
was filed before the discovery deadline. (Doc. #24.)

- 2 -

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 he
may furnish opposing affidavits.

Snook, 859 F.2d at 870.

The

Eleventh Circuit has cautioned that “summary judgment may only be
decided upon an adequate record.”

Id.

See also Jones v. City of

Columbus, Ga., 120 F.3d 248, 253 (11th Cir. 1997) (“The law in
this circuit is clear: the party opposing a motion for summary
judgment should be permitted an adequate opportunity to complete
discovery prior to the consideration of the motion.”).
II.
Here, it is clear that discovery is ongoing, and plaintiff
submits that it has not had sufficient time to obtain all discovery
prior to summary judgment.

Further, there are allegations that

Jubilee has failed to cooperate in discovery, and a renewed Motion
for Sanctions has been filed.

Thus, because the Court finds that

it is in the interests of judicial economy for dispositive motions
to be filed after the conclusion of discovery, the Court will deny
the Motions for Summary Judgment without prejudice to be refiled
after the conclusion of reopened discovery.

- 3 -

The Court will keep

the remaining deadlines in place at this time which the parties
may move to extend, if appropriate.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
Defendant Jubilee Services, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. #58) and Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
#65) are denied without prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __25th__ day of
April, 2019.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 4 -