CENTENNIAL BANK v. TC AMERICAN INVESTMENTS LLC et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to remove the case from the active docket. Additionally, Plaintiff shall submit a proposed Final Judgment not later than May 1, 2015. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 4/20/2015. (jcw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CENTENNIAL BANK.
Plaintiff,
vs.

CASE NO. 5:14- CV- 192-RS-EMT

TC AMERICAN INVESTMENTS, LLC;
TIMOTHY C. CAMPBELL;
TROY R. CAMPBELL,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER
Before me is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33). The
motion was filed on March 18, 2015. Pursuant to N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(C),
Defendants had fourteen (14) days to respond. Further, “[f]ailure to file a
responsive memorandum may be sufficient cause to grant the motion.” Id.
Defendants TC American Investments, LLC, and Timothy C. Campbell have not
responded. Defendant Troy R. Campbell filed a pro se response in opposition.
Doc. 35.
The basic issue before the court on a motion for summary judgment is
“whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a
jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986).

Because “‘[a]ll reasonable doubts about the facts should be resolved in favor of the
non-movant[,]’” I accept the facts in the light most favorable to the Defendants.
Galvez v. Bruce, 552 F.3d 1238, 1239 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Burton v. City of
Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175, 1187 (11th Cir. 1999). However, the Defendants TC
American Investments, LLC, and Timothy C. Campbell have failed to raise any
issue of fact or law that would prevent the entry of a summary final judgment in
favor of Plaintiff. Thus, I will consider the Plaintiff’s alleged facts as undisputed
as to those Defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
Filing pro se, Defendant Troy Campbell did not file a separate statement of
facts as required by our local rules, and the only exhibit he filed is his own
affidavit. In his Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35),
he argues that there “remains questions to be answered and issues to be proven
through the trial process” about whether he was released from the promissory note
and whether the promissory note was “limited, terminated and/or defective[.]”
However, Defendant Troy Campbell has failed to provide any credible evidence in
support of his argument. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s statement of material facts, to
which there is no genuine issue to be tried, is incorporated in this order by
reference. Doc. 34.
Because reasonable minds could not differ on the inferences arising from the
undisputed facts, summary judgment as to all counts is granted in favor of Plaintiff.

See Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc., 975 F.2d 1518, 1534 (11th Cir.
1992) (citing Mercantile Bank & Trust v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 750 F.2d 838,
841 (11th Cir. 1985)). Accordingly, Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is
GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to remove the case from the active docket.
Additionally, Plaintiff shall submit a proposed Final Judgment not later than May
1, 2015.

ORDERED on April 20, 2015.
/s/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE