Reynolds v. Gunite Corporation
Filing
60
OPINION AND ORDER denying 49 Motion for Summary Judgment; parties are free to file any Dispositive motions by 11/11/2011; denying 57 Motion for Settlement. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 8/12/11. (smp)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DIANA REYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GUNITE CORPORATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:08 CV 301
OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendant’s second motion for summary
judgment. (DE # 49.) Summary judgment is only appropriate when “the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). The
moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that these requirements have
been met. Carmichael v. Village of Palatine, 605 F.3d 451, 460 (7th Cir. 2010).
In this case, defendant argues that plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because
they were discharged during defendant’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. There
appears to be no question that defendant filed bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq., and that defendant’s bankruptcy
proceedings were governed by Chapter 11 of the Code. (See, e.g., Def.’s Mot. for Summ.
J., Ex. A.) However, defendant’s brief in support of its motion for summary judgment,
as well as its reply brief, cite to provisions of Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in an
attempt to justify summary judgment in its favor. (See, e.g., Def.’s Memo. 6; Def.’s Reply
1.) Corporate entities do not receive a bankruptcy discharge under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C.A. § 727(a)(1) (“The court shall grant the debtor a discharge,
unless . . . the debtor is not an individual.”). The provisions cited by defendant are
inapplicable to its own bankruptcy proceedings and therefore to this motion for
summary judgment.
In short, defendant has failed to meet its burden on its motion for summary
judgment to demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court
will not scour the Bankruptcy Code to locate legal support for defendant’s own motion.
Defendant’s motion (DE # 49) is DENIED. Both parties are free to file any further
dispositive motions by November 11, 2011.
Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for Settlement.” (DE # 57.) This filing does not
constitute a motion at all, nor is it a settlement agreement. Rather, it appears to
represent plaintiff’s demand for a settlement with defendant. Defendant has responded
to the filing, indicating that no settlement agreement has been reached. The court cannot
effectuate a settlement for the parties based on the motion of one party, so plaintiff’s
motion (DE # 57) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: August 12, 2011
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?