Schaefer v. Hundley et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 71 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER denying 74 Motion for Summary Judgment; ORDER denying 79 Motion to Strike; ORDER denying 80 Motion; ORDER denying 81 Motion. Parties are to file a joint proposed pretrial ord er within thirty days of the filing of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion hearing set for June 20, 2019 at 1:30 PM is VACATED. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 6/15/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

J. MICHAEL SCHAEFER,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No. 2:15-cv-02017-RFB-VCF
ORDER

v.
STEPHEN HUNDLEY,

11

Defendants.

12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION

14

Before the Court are five motions filed by Plaintiff J. Michael Schaefer: Motion for

15

Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71; Application for Entry of Summary Judgment, ECF No. 74;

16

Motion to Strike the Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 79; Motion for

17

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 80; and Motion for Telephonic Hearing, ECF

18

No. 81.

19
20

II.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

21

Schaefer sued Defendants Stephen Hundley and Paul Valdez on October 19, 2015. ECF

22

No. 1. Schaefer voluntarily dismissed Valdez from this matter on March 11, 2016. ECF No. 11.

23

After the denial of early dispositive motions, the Court afforded Schaefer an opportunity to file an

24

amended complaint. ECF No. 23. Schaefer filed the Amended Complaint on September 29, 2019.

25

ECF No. 26.

26

The Court recognizes that both Schaefer and Valdez proceed with a pro-se status in this

27

matter. See docket generally. With the pro-se statuses in mind, the Court construes the Amended

28

Complaint to allege three claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) conversion; and (3) breach of the

1

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. ECF No. 26. Hundley filed a counterclaim for

2

fraudulent misrepresentation, ECF No. 35, and answered the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 48.

3

The Honorable Cam Ferenbach entered the Scheduling Order on July 2, 2018, ordering

4

that discovery closed on October 30, 2018 and that dispositive motions were due by November 30,

5

2018. ECF No. 63.

6

Schaefer now moves for summary judgment and files four related motions. ECF Nos. 71,

7

74, 79–81. Hundley opposed the motion for summary judgment, albeit late, and Schaefer replied.

8

ECF Nos. 77–78.

9
10

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

11

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to

12

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no

13

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When considering

15

the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light

16

most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir.

17

2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the non-moving party “must do more than simply

18

show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts…. Where the record taken as

19

a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine

20

issue for trial.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (alteration in original) (internal quotation

21

marks omitted). It is improper for the Court to resolve genuine factual disputes or make credibility

22

determinations at the summary judgment stage. Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436, 441 (9th

23

Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).

24
25

IV.

DISCUSSION

26

To begin, the Court denies Schaefer’s Motion to Strike the Response to the Motion for

27

Summary Judgment. A “strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favor[s]

28

///

-2-

1

decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.3d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). Based on the

2

policy and the parties’ pro se statuses, the Court denies the Motion to Strike.

3

The Court now turns to the merits Schaefer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, in which it

4

appears that Schaefer argues for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim only. Schaefer

5

contends that: (1) the parties, through their respective corporations that are now dissolved, entered

6

into a contract regarding the purchase of a property known as Tonopah Apartments; (2) the contract

7

entitled him to monthly mortgage payments of $9,000 from Hundley; (3) Schaefer agreed to waive

8

the mortgage payment from January 2015 to March 2015 provided that Hundley vacated the

9

premises by March 31, 2015 without incident; and (4) Hundley breached the contract by remaining

10

on the premise until September 1, 2015 and by removing approximately twenty-six HVAC units.

11

Schaefer does not seek to recover costs for the HVAC units or for the past-due property taxes

12

Schaefer paid after taking possession of the property; he instead seeks $72,000—the total amount

13

owed in mortgage payments from January 2015 to August 2015. Schaefer attaches his own

14

(unsigned) affidavit as evidence that the forgoing factual allegations are true and signs his motion.

15

Hundley opposes the motion. He argues, in part, that the circumstances giving rise to the

16

contract excuse his performance. He specifically contends that the original contract is void based

17

on Schaefer providing a clouded title rather than a title free and clear from other encumbrances.

18

Like Schaefer, Hundley swears that his statements are true and signs his opposition.

19

The Court finds a genuine issue of material fact precludes the entry of summary judgment.

20

Both parties submit factual summaries and attest to the veracity of their statements. Both parties

21

sign their motions when attesting to the truth of their statements. One factual summary would

22

guide the Court to find for Schaefer while the other factual summary would guide the Court to

23

excuse performance of the contract on behalf of Hundley. Further, it is not clear how the rights of

24

the corporations transferred to the parties upon the dissolution of the corporations. Based on the

25

dispute of the factual circumstances and the lack of clarity regarding the parties’ rights, the Court

26

denies Schaefer’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

27

Finally, the Court finds the instant order renders the remaining motions moot. The Court

28

therefore denies the Application for Entry of Summary Judgment, the Motion for Order on the

-3-

1

Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Motion for Telephonic Hearing. The Court orders the

2

parties to submit a proposed joint pretrial order within thirty days from the filing of this decision.

3
4

V.

5

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff J. Michael Schaefer’s Motion for Summary Judgment

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

CONCLUSION

(ECF No. 71) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff J. Michael Schaefer’s Application for Entry
of Summary Judgment (ECF No. 74) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff J. Michael Schaefer’s Motion to Strike
Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 79) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff J. Michael Schaefer’s Motion for Order on
the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 80) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff J. Michael Schaefer’s Motion for Telephonic
Hearing (ECF No. 81) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file a joint proposed pretrial order within
thirty days of the filing of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion hearing set for June 20, 2019 at 1:30 PM
is VACATED.

19
20

DATED: June 15, 2019.

21

__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-