Cooper v. Monetary Inc et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order granting 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment in favor of Defendants Monetary Inc. d/b/a Monetary Consulting, Monetary Consulting, LLC, Ryan Gardner, and Jeff Gardner and against Plaintiff and to close the instant case. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 3/27/14. (jlw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MONETARY INC d/b/a MONETARY
CONSULTING, a Utah Corporation,
MONETARY CONSULTING, LLC, a
Utah limited liability company, RYAN
GARDNER, an individual, JEFF
GARDNER, an individual, and JOHN
DOES 1-50, unknown entities and
Case No. 2:12CV506 DAK
This matter is before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants
Monetary Inc. d/b/a Monetary Consulting, Monetary Consulting, LLC, Ryan Gardner, and Jeff
Gardner.1 The court has carefully reviewed the motion and written memoranda and exhibits
Docket No. 36. Defendants had previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. See
Docket No. 16. Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the first Motion for Summary Judgment,
which Defendants had filed on February 12, 2013. The court, however, invited Plaintiff to file a
motion for an extension of time. See Docket No. 17. Plaintiff then obtained an extension of
time to respond to the motion. See Docket No. 19. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Rule 56(d)
Motion to a Continuance to Conduct Discovery. See Docket No. 20. On May 31, 2013, the
court denied without prejudice Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and granted
Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) Motion. See Docket No. 31. The court instructed Defendants that they
could refile a Motion for Summary Judgment after discovery had been completed. Id.
Accordingly, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary on September 19, 2013.
submitted by Defendants. Ms. Cooper, a pro se Plaintiff, has failed to oppose the motion, despite
the court’s granting her a sua sponte extension of time to respond and notifying her that if no
response was filed by December 6, 2013, the court would decide the motion soon thereafter.2
Although the motion has not been opposed, the court may not grant summary judgment
under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure unless the moving party has met its
initial burden of production and demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
See Reed v. Nellcor Puritan Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1194 (10th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment
is appropriate “if 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When considering
a motion of summary judgment, the court views “all facts [and evidence] in the light most
favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” S.E.C. v. Smart, 678 F.3d 850, 856 (10th
Cir. 2012) (quoting Grynberg v. Total S.A., 538 F.3d 1336, 1346 (10th Cir. 2008)). The movant
must prove that no genuine issue of material fact exist for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
Nahno-Lopez v. Houser, 625 F.3d 1279, 1283 (10th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, to survive
summary judgment, “the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there
is a genuine issue for trial.” Smart, 678 F.3d at 858 (quoting L & M Enters. v. BEI Sensors &
Sys. Co., 231 F.3d 1284, 1287 (10th Cir. 2000).
Docket No. 37 (Docket Text Order, entered on November 19, 2013, noting that
“Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion, and the deadline for doing so was approximately
one month ago. If Plaintiff intends to respond to the motion, the response must be filed by
December 6, 2013. If no response if filed by that date, the court will rule on the motion soon
thereafter.”). A copy of the Docket Text Order was mailed to Plaintiff on November 19, 2013.
Having reviewed the motion and supporting materials filed by Defendants, the court finds
that they have met their burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact
as to each of Plaintiff’s claims and have demonstrated that they are entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 36] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment in
favor of Defendants Monetary Inc. d/b/a Monetary Consulting, Monetary Consulting, LLC, Ryan
Gardner, and Jeff Gardner and against Plaintiff and to close the instant case.
DATED this 27th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge
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?