Rabadi et al v. D.R. Horton, Inc.
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen B. Molzen denying 24 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs shall file a Response to 20 Motion for Summary Judgment no later than May 18, 2018, and Defendant may file a Reply within 14 days of the Response, together with a Notice of Completion of Briefing. (cm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
SHARIF A. and SAMIA RABADI,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CIV 17-1112 JCH/KBM
D R HORTON, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for
Extension of Time (Doc. 24), filed March 29, 2018. Having reviewed the parties’
submissions and all pertinent authority, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ request for
additional discovery prior to ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.
I.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from a dispute over the purchase of impact fee credits
associated with the sale of building lots. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in state court and
Defendant removed it to federal court on November 8, 2017. Doc. 1. This Court entered
a Scheduling Order on January 18, 2018, requiring discovery to be completed by July
18, 2018. Doc. 17. On March 9, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
Doc. 21. In response, Plaintiffs filed an Opposed Motion for Extension of Time,
requesting an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment until
fourteen days after discovery is completed. Doc. 24 at 1.
1
Plaintiffs initially frame their Motion for Extension of Time as a simple request for
an extension of time to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 24 at 1
(noting they were out of town for funerals and did not return until after the deadline to
respond had passed). Defendant notes that it is not opposed to “a limited extension of
time for Plaintiffs to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment . . . .” Doc. 25 at 2.
However, Plaintiffs later request that they not be required to respond to the Motion for
Summary Judgment until all discovery is completed (Doc. 24 at 2), which Defendant
does oppose (Doc. 25 at 2).
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), formerly Rule 56(f), provides that
If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified
reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court
may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain
affidavits or declaration or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other
appropriate order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). The non-movant has the burden to show that additional discovery
is necessary. Martin v. Cty. of Santa Fe, 626 F. App’x. 736, 740 (10th Cir. 2015).
While Rule 56(d) requests are generally treated liberally, Lewis v. City of Ft.
Collins, 903 F.2d 752, 758 (10th Cir. 1990), the Tenth Circuit has held that a request
must meet four requirements, Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Health Care Mgmt. Partners, Ltd.,
616 F.3d 1086, 1096 (10th Cir. 2010). First, the affidavit must identify “the probable
facts not available.” Id. (citation omitted). Second, the affidavit must state “why those
facts cannot be presented currently.” Id. A movant’s exclusive control over the needed
information weighs in favor of 56(d) relief; however, exclusive control is just one factor
and does not grant automatic relief. Price ex. rel. Price v. W. Res., Inc., 232 F.3d 779,
2
783-84 (10th Cir. 2000). Third, the affidavit must specify “what steps have been taken to
obtain these facts.” Valley Forge Ins. Co., 616 F.3d at 1096 (citation omitted). And
fourth, the affidavit must explain “how additional time will enable [the party] to obtain
those facts and rebut the motion for summary judgment.” Id. “A party may not invoke
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56[(d)] by merely asserting that discovery is incomplete or that specific
facts necessary to oppose summary judgment are unavailable. Rather, the party must
demonstrate precisely how additional discovery will lead to a genuine issue of material
fact.” Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co., Inc., v. Am. Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 987 (10th Cir.
2000).
The Court liberally construes Plaintiffs’ pro se pleadings and holds them “to a
less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal citation omitted)). The Court may not,
however, “serv[e] as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the
record.” Id. (citation omitted).
III.
ANALYSIS
Simply put, Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of demonstrating why facts
precluding summary judgment cannot be presented. While Plaintiffs did submit an
affidavit with their reply brief, it merely lists the facts underlying the case, many of which
are the same facts presented in the Complaint. Compare Doc. 26-1, with Doc. 1 at 5.
Plaintiffs explain that the issue in this case is “whether or not a contract should be found
existing between the Parties for the assignment of impact fee credits . . .” (Doc. 26 at 2),
3
and they seek to depose the “primary witnesses,” Patrick Lesley, Mr. Anderson, and
D.R. Horton’s president (Docs. 26 at 2; 24 at 4).
Even liberally construing their statement of facts in the affidavit as identification of
probable facts not available, Plaintiffs have not met the other requirements under Rule
56(d). They have not shown why facts precluding summary judgment cannot be
presented currently, what steps they have taken to obtain these facts, or how additional
time will enable them to rebut summary judgment. A mere assertion that there are
“unresolved issues of fact” (Doc. 26 at 2, ¶ 6) is not sufficient to invoke Rule 56(d). See
Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co., Inc., 206 F.3d at 987. Thus, Plaintiffs’ affidavit falls short of
providing specific reasons why they cannot now present evidence precluding summary
judgment nor how additional discovery would be helpful in precluding summary
judgment.
Wherefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Opposed Motion for Extension of Time
(Doc. 24) is denied to the extent the Plaintiffs seek an extension of time to respond to
the Motion for Summary Judgment until after discovery is complete.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a Response to the Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) no later than May 18, 2018, and Defendant may file a
Reply within 14 days of the Response, together with a Notice of Completion of Briefing.
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?