Ghattas v. First National Bank of Layton

Filing 83

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Daniela M. Spiridons motion for an Extension of time to respond to plaintiffs partial motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. [Doc. 79.]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is STAYED as to de fendant Daniela M. Spiridon only. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order, counsel for Daniela M. Spiridon shall file with the Court a written status report notifying the Court of Daniela M. Spiridons st atus and her ability to respondto plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. Counsel for defendant Spiridon shall provide the Court with monthly written status reports until such time as the stay is lifted in this case, or counsel is otherwise ordered. ( Response to Court due by 6/25/2014.). Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 5/27/14. (JWJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

GHATTAS M. GHATTAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
LAYTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12-CV-2348 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on defendant Daniela Spiridon’s motion for an
extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Defense
counsel requests an extension of time because defendant Spiridon is unavailable to respond
to the motion. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that defendant Spiridon failed to
comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant Spiridon did not file a reply memorandum in support of her motion,
and the time to do so has expired, therefore, the motion is ripe for review. For the following
reasons, the Court will grant defendant Spiridon’s motion for an extension of time.

As background, Daniela Spiridon is criminal defendant in the matter of United States
v. Spiridon, No. 4:13-CR-101 JAR, a case pending in this District before the Honorable John
A. Ross. According to defense counsel, due to her criminal prosecution, Ms. Spiridon has

been asserting her Fifth Amendment rights as to discovery against her in the above-captioned
cause of action, pending a resolution of the criminal matter.1 Defense counsel further avers
that a tentative plea agreement was entered into between the United States and Ms. Spiridon
in Case No. 4:13-CR-101, with a hearing date set for May 22, 2014. According to the motion
presently before the Court, it came to defense counsel’s attention during the time he was
preparing to respond to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment that Ms. Spiridon
had been remanded to the United States Marshals for the purpose of conducting a psychiatric
evaluation to determine her competency to enter a plea agreement or to stand trial in her
criminal case. Since the time she went into custody for a mental evaluation, defense counsel
has been unable to speak to or confer with defendant Spiridon for the purpose of responding
to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Defense counsel requests that the Court
grant defendant Spiridon additional time to respond to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary
judgment until after the court in the criminal matter has determined Ms. Spiridon’s
competency, and her plea has been entered.
Plaintiff Ghattas M. Ghattas opposes defendant Spiridon’s motion, arguing that she
has not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). First, plaintiff argues that
defendant Spiridon failed to provide an affidavit in support of her motion. Second, plaintiff
asserts that defendant Spiridon has not shown why she cannot respond to the motion, and

1

In this civil matter, defendant Spiridon is represented by Dean A. Stark. Mr. Stark is not
representing defendant Spiridon in her criminal case.
-2-

how postponement would enable her to rebut plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion.

The Court finds that defendant Spiridon is not seeking relief under Rule 56(d), but
rather she is seeking relief under the general rule for extensions of time, Rule 6(b). Rule
56(d), as it is entitled, is for situations when a party is unable to respond to a summary
judgment motion because “facts are unavailable to the nonmovant.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d). In the motion, defense counsel is not stating that facts are unavailable to defendant
Spiridon such that she cannot respond to the motion for partial summary judgment, but rather
defense counsel is asking for an extension due to the fact that the defendant herself is
unavailable because she is in federal custody and defense counsel has been unable to contact
her. Defense counsel cannot be expected to respond to a summary judgment motion without
consultation with his client. Furthermore, plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s motion must
be accompanied by an affidavit from defendant Spiridon is nonsensical in this situation.
Defense counsel has stated that he has been unable to communicate with his client, and that
she is being evaluated to determine whether she is mentally competent to enter a plea or
stand trial.
Having considered the parties’ memoranda and the posture of this case, the Court
finds there is good cause to grant defense counsel’s motion for an extension to time to
respond to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, and on its own motion, the
Court will enter a stay of this matter as to defendant Spiridon only. The Court will further
order defendant Spiridon’s counsel to provide the Court with monthly status reports. Every
-3-

thirty days, Spiridon’s counsel shall file a written status report with the Court detailing his
client’s status and her ability to respond to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Daniela M. Spiridon’s motion for an
extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s partial motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED. [Doc. 79]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is STAYED as to defendant Daniela
M. Spiridon only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that thirty (30) days from the date of this
Memorandum and Order, counsel for Daniela M. Spiridon shall file with the Court a written
status report notifying the Court of Daniela M. Spiridon’s status and her ability to respond
to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Counsel for defendant Spiridon shall
provide the Court with monthly written status reports until such time as the stay is lifted in
this case, or counsel is otherwise ordered.

__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

27th

day of May, 2014.

-4-