CDS Family Trust, et al. v. Ernest R. Martin, et al.

Filing 200

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson on 4/9/2019. (c/m 4/9/19 jnls, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 4/9/2019 (jnls, Deputy Clerk).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CDS FAMILY TRUST, et al,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

ERNEST R. MARTIN, et al,

*

Defendants.
*

*

Civil Case No. 1:15–cv–02584–JMC

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION ADDRESSING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNTS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 6 AGAINST WPO, INC
At its core, this case involves an allegation that Defendants wrongfully mined coal from an
area where they did not own the necessary mineral rights. The case is before me for all proceedings
by the consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Now pending before this Court are
five motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 125, 126, 127, 129, and the remainder of 130) by
various plaintiffs and defendants. This memorandum only concerns ECF No. 129, Plaintiffs’
Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 against Defendant WPO, Inc. The
Court has also reviewed WPO’s opposition and the Coal Defendants’ opposition. (ECF Nos. 145
and 159). No reply was filed, and no hearing is necessary.
Central to Plaintiffs’ motion are requests for admission that Plaintiffs assert were served
on WPO and remain unanswered. As such, Plaintiffs argue that the matters set forth in them are
conclusively established, entitling them to judgment. In their Opposition, (ECF No. 159), WPO
denies receiving any requests for admission from Plaintiffs. That is, WPO denies that the requests
were ever served, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, and so deny that its failure to
serve responses establishes the facts asserted in the requests.

1

Given that Plaintiffs’ motion rises and falls with the requests for admission, and the
representations to the Court given by WPO (and, by signing the Opposition, their counsel) that the
requests were never received, the matters asserted in those requests are not deemed established.
Without such support, Plaintiffs’ motion does not sufficiently show a lack of genuine dispute as to
any material facts.
The parties should note, however, that depending on the outcome of the upcoming hearing
addressing all open motions, the Court may well permit Plaintiffs (or any other parties) to propound
requests for admissions to streamline any remaining issues in advance of trial.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion, (ECF No. 129), is DENIED. A separate
order follows.

Dated: April 9, 2019

/s/
J. Mark Coulson
United States Magistrate Judge

2