FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA, INC. et al v. WELTON et al

Filing 91

ORDER - This matter involves thirteen plaintiffs, eleven defendants, and widespread allegations of improper and discriminatory conduct in the marketing and selling of derelict homes on a "rent-to-own" basis. [See generally Filing No. 9 .] Defendants counterclaim, alleging defamation and other state-law tort and contract claims. [Filing No. 32 at 33-52.] Pending before the Court are two summary judgment motions (one ripe and the other awaiting additional briefing) and a collate ral motion for additional discovery to respond to summary judgment. [Filing No. 33 ; Filing No. 65 ; Filing No. 72 .] This Order sets forth the Court's expectations for dispositive motions practice during the pendency of this matter. As ex plained below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), [Filing No. 65 ]; DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 33 ]; and NOTIFIES Plaintiffs that they may e ither withdraw their Anti-SLAPP summary judgment motion, [Filing No. 72 ], or may stand on their motion, but file no additional summary judgment motions in this case. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion Pursuant to Rule 56(d), 65 , and DENIES Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 33 , WITHOUT PREJUDICE to raising their arguments as part of a single summary judgment motion at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. Consistent with the foregoing, the Cour t NOTIFIES Plaintiffs that they may withdraw their not-yet-ripe Anti-SLAPP summary judgment motion, 72 , and include the same arguments in a later, consolidated dispositive motion, or may stand on their filing and permit it to proceed to resolutio n. But Plaintiffs, like Defendants, will be entitled to just one summary judgment motion in this lawsuit. The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to notify the Court whether they intend to withdraw their summary judgment motion on or before October 10, 2018. Finally, the Clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect pro se Plaintiff Isaac Perez's last known address, as shown in the distribution below. (See Order). Copy to Isaac Perez via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/3/2018. (APD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL
INDIANA, INC., et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARSHALL WELTON, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:18-cv-01098-JMS-DLP

ORDER
This matter involves thirteen plaintiffs, eleven defendants, and widespread allegations of
improper and discriminatory conduct in the marketing and selling of derelict homes on a “rent-toown” basis. [See generally Filing No. 9.] Defendants counterclaim, alleging defamation and other
state-law tort and contract claims. [Filing No. 32 at 33-52.] Pending before the Court are two
summary judgment motions (one ripe and the other awaiting additional briefing) and a collateral
motion for additional discovery to respond to summary judgment. [Filing No. 33; Filing No. 65;
Filing No. 72.] This Order sets forth the Court’s expectations for dispositive motions practice
during the pendency of this matter. As explained below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), [Filing No. 65]; DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 33]; and NOTIFIES Plaintiffs
that they may either withdraw their Anti-SLAPP summary judgment motion, [Filing No. 72], or
may stand on their motion, but file no additional summary judgment motions in this case.
The first tandem of motions are fully briefed. On July 17, 2018, contemporaneous with
their Answer, Defendants filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 33],
arguing that they are entitled to judgment on four of the fourteen counts alleged in Plaintiffs’

Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs responded in opposition and also filed a Motion Pursuant to Rule
56(d), asking the Court to deny Defendants’ Motion to allow Plaintiffs to conduct discovery on
the issues raised in the summary judgment motion. [Filing No. 65.] In Defendants’ response to
Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) Motion, Defendants concede that additional discovery would be appropriate
as to two of the four claims on which they seek summary judgment. [Filing No. 81 at 3-5.]
Defendants argue, however, that even if the Court were to permit additional discovery on those
two claims, it should still nonetheless rule on the merits of the other two claims that do not
(according to Defendants) require additional discovery. [Filing No. 81 at 5.]
Rule 56(d) permits a court to deny a motion for summary judgment or “issue any other
appropriate order” where “a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified
reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(1), (3).
Plaintiffs’ Motion Pursuant to Rule 56(d) is well taken in light of Defendants’ concession that
additional discovery is appropriate on two of the claims for which they seek summary judgment.
But the Court will not indulge Defendants’ request that it entertain piecemeal dispositive motions
or rule on a motion for summary judgment on just two of the fourteen pending counts from
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, especially given their representations that at least one additional
summary judgment motion is already contemplated. [Filing No. 87 at 8 (“Defendants anticipate
that discovery in this case may reveal grounds for additional motions for summary judgment . . .
.”).] The Court does not have the resources to rule on serial dispositive motions and declines to
permit this litigation to proceed further in such a fashion. Rather, as set forth in the Court’s
Uniform Case Management Plain, the Court will require that all parties raise “all issues . . . in a
single

[summary

judgment]

motion.”

http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/sites/insd/files/

Uniform%20CMP%20-%20Final%209-7-18.pdf, at 7. The single-motion requirement furthers

2

the important purposes of “streamlin[ing] dispositive motions practice” and “encourag[ing]
litigants to scrutinize their cases in determining which issues to raise in dispositive motions.”
Shanehsaz v. Johnson, 2017 WL 2901213, at *1 (S.D. Ind. 2017).
The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion Pursuant to Rule 56(d), [65], and
DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [33], WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
raising their arguments as part of a single summary judgment motion at the appropriate stage of
the proceedings. Consistent with the foregoing, the Court NOTIFIES Plaintiffs that they may
withdraw their not-yet-ripe Anti-SLAPP summary judgment motion, [72], and include the same
arguments in a later, consolidated dispositive motion, or may stand on their filing and permit it to
proceed to resolution. But Plaintiffs, like Defendants, will be entitled to just one summary
judgment motion in this lawsuit.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to notify the Court whether they intend to withdraw their
summary judgment motion on or before October 10, 2018. Should Plaintiffs elect to proceed with
their currently-pending Motion, Defendants shall have eight days to file their response brief from
the date Plaintiffs file the appropriate notice. Should Plaintiffs elect to withdraw their Motion,
then dispositive motions briefing shall proceed on the following four-brief schedule: Defendants
shall file any dispositive motion on or before June 3, 2019. Plaintiffs shall respond and include
any cross-dispositive motion on or before July 3, 2019. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs’
cross-dispositive motion and include any reply in support of Defendants’ dispositive motion on or
before August 2, 2019. Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their cross-dispositive motion
on or before August 16, 2019.

3

Finally, the Clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect pro se Plaintiff Isaac Perez’s
last known address, as shown in the distribution below.

Date: 10/3/2018

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record.
Distribution via U.S. Mail to:
Isaac Perez
1735 North Rochester Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46222

4