Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 225

Reply to Objection to Findings and Recommendations re 210 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S MOTION TO RENEW SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PENDING AT TIME OF MANDATORY STAY filed by Lee Enterprises Incorporated. DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S 'OBJECTIONS TO COURT FINDINGS IN RE DOC # 210 LEE ENTERPRISES INC SUMMARY JUDGMENT' filed by Lee Enterprises Incorporated. (Smith, Jeffrey)

Anita Harper Poe
Jeffrey B. Smith
GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP
350 Ryman Street. P. O. Box 7909
Missoula, MT 59807-7909
Telephone (a06) 523-2500
Telefax [phone]
[e-mail]
j bsmith@garlington. com
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

IN THE I-INITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TFIE DISTzuCT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
MICFIAEL E. SPREADBURY,

Cause No.

CV-l I-064-M-DWM

Plaintiff.
V.

BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY.
CITY OF HAMILTON, LEE
ENTERPRISES, INC., and BOONE
KARLBERG P.C..

DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES,
INC.'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S'OBJECTIONS TO
COURT FINDINGS IN RE: DOC.
# 2IO LEE ENTERPRISES INC.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT'

Defendants.

Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc. ("Lee Enterprises"), through its counsel,

Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, PLLP, respectfully submits this Response Brief in
Opposition to Plaintiff s 'Objection to Court Findings in Re: Doc. # 210 Lee
Enterprises Inc. Summary Judgment' (Dkt. 215).
On November 30, 2011, the Magistrate entered Findings and

Recommendations regarding Lee Enterprises' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Dkt. l8l

.

On December 12,201l, Plaintiff, Michael Spreadbury ("Spreadbury"),

filed objection to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations. Dkt. 188.
Prior to the deadline for Lee Enterprises to file its objections, this matter was
stayed pursuant to

l1 U.S.C.

$ 362, due to Lee Enterprises' bankruptcy.

Accordingly, the District Court denied Lee Enterprises' motion for summary
judgment, subject to renewal when the bankruptcy stay was lifted. Dkt. 193.
Lee Enterprises filed notice with the Court on January 30,2012, that the

bankruptcy stay was lifted as of that day. Dkt.204. On January 3l

,20l2,Lee

Enterprises properly moved to renew its summary judgment motion. Dkt. 206. On
January 31,2012, the day after the stay was lifted, Lee Enterprises filed its

Objections, in part, to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. 207),
and a

Brief in Opposition to Spreadbury's Objections (Dkt. 209).
The Magistrate properly granted Lee Enterprises' motion to renew, so that the

Court can decide the summary judgment issue. Dkt. 210. It is this decision to

which Spreadbury's current pleading is directed.
Spreadbury's current objections do not, however, address the decision to

renew. Rather, Spreadbury raises unrelated factual issues which he contends
should defeat summary judgment. The Magistrate's Order did not invite an

opportunity to further argue his Findings and Recommendations on the merits of

t123604

Summary Judgment. Spreadbury presented no argument against renewing the

motion upon the lifting of the bankruptcy stay.
Upon the filing of bankruptcy,

l1 U.S.C.

$ 362(a) imposed an automatic stay

prohibiting continuation of actions against Lee Enterprises that began before the
bankruptcy was
stay would be

filed. I I U.S.C.

$ 362(a)(1),(3) (2010). Actions taken during the

void. In re Schwartz,954F.2d569,571 (9th Cir. 1992). Lee

Enterprises was, therefore, precluded from filing its Objections and Response

Brief

until the automatic stay was lifted, and the Court was, likewise, precluded from
deciding the Motion for Summary Judgment, during that time.
Upon the lifting of the stay, the Magistrate properly granted Lee Enterprises'

Motion to Renew, so that the case may continue. Spreadbury has not offered any
reason why the Order and Findings and Recommendations are not proper.
Lee Enterprises respectfully requests the Court sustain the Magistrate's Order

to renew its Motion for Summary Judgment, and reconsider the prior Findings and
Recommendations, as well as the parties' objections and responses to objections.

DATED this l4th day of February , 2012.

lsl

Jeffrev B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

tt23604

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(d)(2)(E), I

certif'that this Defendant

Lee Enterprises,

Inc.'s Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff's 'Objections to Court Findings In
Re: Doc. #

2I0 Lee Enterprises Inc. Summary Judgment' is printed with

proportionately spaced Times New Roman text typeface of l4 points; is doublespaced; and the word count, calculated by Microsoft Office Word 2007, is 462

words long, excluding Caption, Certificate of Service and Certificate

of

Compliance.

lsl

Jeffrey B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certiff that on February 14,2012, a copy of the foregoing document
was seryed on the following persons by the following means:

2

CM/ECF
Hand Delivery

1

Mail
Overnight Delivery Service
Fax
E-Mail

l.

Michael E. Spreadbury
P.O. Box 416
Hamilton, MT 59840
Pro Se Plaintiff

2.

William L. Crowley
Natasha Prinzing Jones
Thomas J. Leonard
bcrowl ey @boonekarlberg. com
npj ones@boonekarlberg. com
tleonard@boonekarlberg, com
Attorneys for Defendants Bitterroot Public Library, City of Hamilton, and
Boone Karlberg P.C.

lsl

Jeffrey B. Smith
Attorneys for Defendant, Lee Enterprises, Inc.

n23604