MB REO-FL Church-2, LLC v. Tampa For Christ Church, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 31 Motion for summary judgment. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/19/2016. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MB REO-FL CHURCH-2, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-276-T-33MAP

TAMPA FOR CHRIST CHURCH, INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court in consideration of
Defendant Frank M. Bafford’s Motion to Grant Summary Judgment
Pursuant to FRCP 56 (Doc. # 31), which was filed on April 4,
2016, while Bafford was proceeding pro se. Plaintiff MB ReoFL Church-2, LLC did not file a response in opposition.
Furthermore, although Bafford retained counsel after filing
his Motion (Doc. # 38), no further filings with respect to
the Motion have been submitted on his behalf.
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate when the “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). “A party asserting that a fact cannot be .

1 

. . genuinely disputed must support the assertion . . . .”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). As noted by the court in United States
v. 5800 SW 74th Avenue, Miami, Florida,
the district court cannot base the entry of summary
judgment on the mere fact that the motion was
unopposed, but, rather, must consider the merits of
the motion. The district court need not sua sponte
review all of the evidentiary materials on file at
the time the motion is granted, but must ensure
that the motion itself is supported by evidentiary
materials.
363 F.3d 1099, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal citations
omitted). Thus, the Court retains an independent obligation
to ensure the grant of summary judgment is appropriate,
notwithstanding

MB

Reo-FL

Church-2’s

failure

to

file

a

response.
Here, the Motion contains not a single citation to any
portion

of

the

record,

which

itself

presents

sufficient

grounds for denial. As noted on the undersigned’s website,
“[f]ailure

to

submit

a

statement

of

material

facts

constitutes grounds for denial of the motion.” Statement of
Material Facts, Motions for Summary Judgment, Civil Motions,
Virginia M. Hernandez Covington, Tampa Division, Judicial
Info,

U.S.

District

Ct.

Middle

District

of

Fla.,

http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judicialInfo/Tampa/JgCovington
.htm

(last

visited

May

19,

2016,

2 

at

8:15AM)

(emphasis

omitted). Furthermore, the Motion fails to comply with Local
Rule

3.01(a),

which

requires

the

movant

to

include

a

memorandum of legal authority in support of the request. The
Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order also directs
that “[a] motion for summary judgment shall specify the
material facts as to which the moving party contends there is
no genuine issue for trial, and shall include a memorandum of
law . . . .” (Doc. # 23 at 6).
Stemming from the aforementioned deficiencies, Bafford’s
3-sentence Motion fails to persuade the Court that summary
judgment is appropriate. The Motion contains no argument or
factual support; rather, Bafford conclusorily argues summary
judgment

is

appropriate.

Without

more,

the

Court

is

unpersuaded.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Defendant Frank M. Bafford’s Motion to Grant Summary
Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 56 (Doc. # 31), is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this
19th day of May, 2016.

3