Bunch v. Swalinkavich
Filing
44
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered: GRANTING 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims. An order of dismissal to be entered separately. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TOM BUNCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW SWALINKAVICH,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
October 08, 2021
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-1570
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
This case arises out of a 2011 management agreement between Tom Bunch, a provider of
professional management services to musicians, and Matthew Swalinkavich, professionally
known as Makana, a guitarist. Bunch alleges that Swalinkavich breached the management
agreement in a number of ways before purporting to terminate it in 2013. Bunch sued in Texas
state court, and Swalinkavich timely removed to this federal court. Swalinkavich admitted in his
answer that he had signed the management agreement but claimed that he had terminated it for
Bunch’s nonperformance. Swalinkavich alleged that he had performed his obligations under the
agreement before terminating it, denying any breach, and he asserted affirmative defenses and
counterclaims for Bunch’s breach of the agreement, for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, for fraud and fraudulent inducement, and for conversion.
In 2014, this federal action was stayed due to a proceeding pending before the California
Labor Commission alleging that Bunch had violated California law governing talent agents such
as Bunch. (Docket Entry No. 14). This court reinstated this federal action to the active docket in
March 2021 and set a scheduling and docket control order. (Docket Entry Nos. 19, 29). After
Bunch’s third set of lawyers withdrew, (Docket Entry No. 32, 33), and counsel for Swalinkavich
moved for summary judgment, (Docket Entry No. 35), the court allowed Bunch additional time to
find new counsel. (Docket Entry No. 38). Bunch did not do so, but he did file a response to the
motion for summary judgment. (Docket Entry No. 40). Swalinkavich replied. (Docket Entry No.
42). As part of the reply, Swalinkavich notes that if the court grants summary judgment on
Bunch’s claims, Swalinkavich will dismiss his counterclaims. (Id., at 4).
I.
The Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Shepherd, on
Behalf of Estate of Shepherd v. City of Shreveport, 920 F.3d 278, 282–83 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). “A fact is material if it would affect the outcome of the case” and “a dispute
is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving
party.” Warren v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 932 F.3d 378, 882–83 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation marks
omitted).
A court considering a motion for summary judgment must view “all evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party and draw[] all reasonable inferences in the non-movant’s
favor.” Hutcheson v. Dallas Cnty., 994 F.3d 477, 479 (5th Cir. 2021). “However, to avoid
summary judgment, the non-movant must go beyond the pleadings and come forward with specific
facts indicating a genuine issue for trial.” LeMaire v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383,
387 (5th Cir. 2007). The non-movant must “make a sufficient showing of an essential element of
the case to which [he] has the burden of proof.” Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am.,
114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). Rule 56 does not impose a duty on the court “to ‘sift through
the record in search of evidence to support’ the non-movant’s opposition to summary judgment.”
Carr v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l, 866 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Forsyth v. Barr, 19
2
F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir. 1994)). Conclusory statements, speculation, and unsubstantiated
assertions cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment. RSR Corp. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 612 F.3d
851, 857 (5th Cir. 2010).
II.
Analysis
Since March 2021, when the stay in this action was lifted and it was reinstated to the active
docket, Bunch has failed to respond to written discovery, including requests for admission. Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(3) requires that a written answer or objection to a request for
admission be filed within 30 days after it is served unless a longer time for responding is stipulated
under Rule 29 or ordered by the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). A failure to file timely respond
results in the matter being “admitted.” Id.; Am. Auto. Ass’n v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson
Crooke, P.C., 930 F.2d 1117, 1119 (5th Cir. 1991). “Any matter admitted under Rule 36 is deemed
conclusively established,” and “the failure to respond to requests for admission can lead to a grant
of summary judgment against the non-responding party.” Murrell v. Casterline, 307 F. App’x
778, 780 (5th Cir. 2008).
Bunch’s failure to respond to the requests for admission deems the admissions established.
The deemed admissions include that the management agreement was invalid and unenforceable as
the product of fraudulent inducement; that Bunch failed to perform his obligations under the
agreement; and that Bunch repudiated the agreement. (Docket Entry No. 35 and Ex. A). Bunch’s
response to the summary judgment motion is an unrestrained set of ad hominem accusations that
Swalinkavich’s counsel and Swalinkavich have repeatedly lied on the merits and that they have
given “BS excuses” and played a “series of tricks” to avoid depositions or discovery, without
identifying deposition notices or discovery requests. (Docket Entry No. 40). At the same time,
Bunch acknowledges that he and two sets of his prior counsel told courts that they were ready to
3
go straight to trial with no depositions or discovery. (Id.). Bunch alleges that Swalinkavich has
committed “repetitive lies and rants,” and that the summary judgment motion must be denied to
allow Bunch’s 2013 complaint to “be amended to a simple contract dispute and the scheduling
expanded to allow for these charges.” (Id.)
Bunch’s response to the summary judgment motion does not address Swalinkavich’s
argument that his own discovery failures establish an uncontroverted basis to grant the motion.
Bunch instead accuses his now-withdrawn former lawyers of failing to follow his instructions on
how to proceed in what Bunch asserts should have been a “simple” contract dispute litigated only
in Texas. He accuses his former lawyers of violating their agreements with him and committing
malpractice. Bunch’s response fails to respond to the arguments supporting summary judgment,
instead attacking his own prior lawyers and asking this court to answer questions about the
California case that have not been raised in the summary judgment motion and are beyond the
record in this case.
Swalinkavich’s reply to Bunch’s response to the summary judgment motion points out
these deficiencies and Bunch’s litigation misconduct that the deficiencies reflect. (Docket Entry
No. 42). Swalinkavich also submitted evidence that Bunch has failed to respond to discovery
requests and obligations in the California case, and that Bunch’s litigation conduct in that case was
also inappropriate.
At bottom, this is an old case in which the parties found their contractual relationship with
each other unworkable, and the plaintiff’s lawyers found their professional relationship with the
plaintiff unworkable. The result has been a failure to prosecute effectively or diligently, or within
the limits of acceptable professional court standards.
4
III.
Conclusion
The court grants Swalinkavich’s motion for summary judgment dismissing Bunch’s claims
for breach of a valid, enforceable contract. The court also grants Swalinkavich’s motion to dismiss
his counterclaims.
An Order of Dismissal will be separately entered.
SIGNED on October 8, 2021, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge
5
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?