Gardner et al v. Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 43 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 4/20/16 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
YOHANA GARDNER, an individual, and
BRYCE GARDNER, an individual,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING [43] MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 2:14-CV-00602
DESERET MUTUAL BENEFIT
ADMINISTRATORS, a Utah non-profit
corporation,
Defendant.
District Judge David Nuffer
Defendant Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators (“Deseret Mutual”) seeks summary
dismissal of Plaintiffs Yohana Gardner and Bryce Gardner’s (“the Gardners”) five causes of
action relating to Yohana Gardner. 1 Because Deseret Mutual’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment is untimely under the scheduling order governing this case, 2 the Motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
“[A] Scheduling Order is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be
cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” 3 “To the contrary, a scheduling order is an
important tool necessary for the orderly preparation of a case for trial.” 4 “[D]istrict courts enjoy
1
See Mot. and Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. on Yohana Gardner’s Claims (“Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment” or “Motion”), docket no. 43, filed Mar. 4, 2016.
2
See Am. Scheduling Order at 3, docket no. 35, filed Nov. 9, 2015.
3
Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. Universal Am. Mortg. Co., LLC, 300 F.R.D. 678, 681 (D.Colo. 2014) (internal
quotations omitted).
4
Washington v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Social Servs., 197 F.R.D. 439, 441 (D.Colo. 2000).
broad discretion to manage” their dockets and to consider motions that are not timely filed under
their scheduling orders. 5
The Amended Scheduling Order governing this matter set February 5, 2016, as the
“[d]eadline for filing dispositive or potentially dispositive motions[.]”6 Deseret Mutual filed its
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on March 4, 2016, approximately one month after this
deadline passed. Deseret Mutual did not seek extension of the deadline, nor did it seek leave to
permit the untimely filing of its Motion. Rather, Deseret Mutual argues that because the purpose
of summary judgment is to narrow the issues for trial, 7 and because summary judgment motions
may be granted sua sponte, 8 its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be considered
regardless of its timeliness. 9 Deseret Mutual further asserts that its failure to timely file the
Motion resulted from an oversight after it afforded the Gardners additional time to complete fact
discovery. 10
Given the circumstances of this case, Deseret Mutual’s arguments do not excuse the
untimely filing of its Motion or justify a merits review of the Motion. Deseret Mutual previously
filed a timely motion for partial summary judgment as to the Gardners’ causes of action relating
to Bryce Gardner. 11 Deseret Mutual also acknowledged that it possessed the necessary facts and
5
C.f. Grynberg v. Ivanhoe Energy, Inc., 490 Fed. Appx. 86, 104 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying an untimely motion for jurisdictional discovery related to a motion to dismiss); See
also Sisneros v. United States, 2008 WL 4170361, **9-10 (D.Colo Sept. 5, 2008) (denying motions for summary
judgment as untimely under the court’s scheduling order).
6
Am. Scheduling Order at 3.
7
See, e.g., Calvert v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 2007 WL 4207198, *6 (D.Utah Nov. 26, 2007).
8
See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f).
9
See Reply in Supp. of Mot. and Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. on Yohana Gardner’s Claims (“Reply
Memorandum”) at 1-4, docket no. 49, filed Apr. 8, 2016.
10
See id. at 3.
11
See Am. Mot. and Mem. in Supp. of Partial Summ. J. on Bryce Gardner’s Claims for Breach of Contract, Breach
of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Retaliation, docket no. 17, filed Jan. 28, 2015.
2
evidence to timely file its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the Gardners’ causes of
action relating to Yohana Gardner, but chose not to do so. 12 This deliberate inaction on the part
of Deseret Mutual is insufficient to establish good cause to warrant an amendment of the
Amended Scheduling Order’s dispositive motion deadline. 13
Moreover, the purpose of summary judgment—to narrow the issues for trial— 14 may still
be satisfied in the absence of a merits review of Deseret Mutual’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. As recognized by Deseret Mutual, Yohana Gardner’s breach of contract and breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims are nearly identical to those of Bryce Gardner
that were previously dismissed. 15 The Gardner’s conceded this point in their opposition to the
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 16 Summary judgment on these claims may therefore be
granted sua sponte without resort to a merits review of the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. 17
Additionally, with regard to Yohana Gardner’s FMLA and Title VII claims, Deseret
Mutual’s primary argument—that the Gardners failed to establish genuine disputes of material
fact to preclude summary judgment—is premised on the propriety of the Gardners’ reliance on
the Undisputed Material Facts in the Memorandum Decision and Order on Deseret Mutual’s
prior summary judgment motion. 18 The Gardners maintain that several of these Undisputed
12
See Reply Memorandum at 4.
13
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4); see also Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 300 F.R.D. at 681 (“Properly construed, good
cause means that scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite a party’s diligent efforts.”) (internal quotations
omitted)
14
See, e.g., Calvert v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 2007 WL 4207198, *6 (D.Utah Nov. 26, 2007).
15
See Reply Memorandum at 4; see also Complaint at 15-17, docket no. 2, filed Aug. 19, 2014.
16
See Mem. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J. on Yohana Gardner’s Claims (“Opposition
Memorandum”) at 2, docket no. 47, filed Apr. 1, 2016.
17
See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f)(3).
18
See Reply Memorandum at 5-6.
3
Material Facts are directly applicable to, and preclude summary judgment on, Yohana Gardner’s
FMLA and Title VII claims. 19 Deseret Mutual is correct in that these Undisputed Material Facts,
in and of themselves, are neither admissible as evidence nor necessarily undisputed for purposes
of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 20 However, the deficiency in the Gardner’s
opposition does not automatically entitle Deseret Mutual to the summary dismissal of Yohana
Gardner’s FMLA and Title VII claims.
Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for various options when “a
party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s
assertion of fact[.]” 21 Among these options are affording the party “an opportunity to properly
support or address the fact… [or] issu[ing] any other appropriate order.” 22 Rule 56(c)(3) further
provides that “[t]he court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other
materials in the record.” 23 Therefore, “the court may choose not to consider the fact as
undisputed, particularly if the court knows of record materials that show grounds for genuine
dispute.” 24
The Undisputed Material Facts that the Gardners cite to in their opposition to the Motion
are a reconciliation of the parties’ statements of material facts submitted in support of, and in
opposition to, Deseret Mutual’s prior summary judgment motion. 25 Many of these Undisputed
19
See Opposition Memorandum at 2-4, 30-46.
20
See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(2), Advisory Committee Notes 2010 Amendment Subdivision (e) (“The fact is
considered undisputed only for purposes of the motion; if summary judgment is denied, a party who failed to make a
proper Rule 56 response or reply remains free to contest the fact in further proceedings.”).
21
See id. at 56(e).
22
See id. at 56(e)(1), (4).
23
Id. at 56(c)(3).
24
Id. at 56, Advisory Committee Notes 2010 Amendment Subdivision (e).
25
See Mem. Decision and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part [17] Mot. for Partial Summ. J. at 2, docket no.
45, filed Mar. 22, 2016.
4
Material Facts pertain to Deseret Mutual’s internal policies, its treatment of Yohana Gardner,
and the circumstances surrounding its termination of her employment. 26 These Undisputed
Material Facts also include citations to admissible evidence in the record, 27 and were ultimately
part of the analysis that precluded summary judgment on Bryce Gardner’s FMLA and Title VII
claims. 28 Given these circumstances, requiring the Gardners to submit supplemental briefing 29 to
properly support or address the facts raised in Deseret Mutual’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment may merely delay the denial of the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and further
proceedings in this matter. “[I]t is better to leave open for trial facts and issues that may be better
illuminated by the trial of related facts that must be tried in any event.” 30 Accordingly, it is
appropriate that Deseret Mutual’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be DENIED as
untimely under the Amended Scheduling Order. 31
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Deseret Mutual’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment 32 is DENIED.
Signed April 20, 2016.
BY THE COURT
________________________________________
David Nuffer
District Court Judge
26
See id. at 7-14.
27
See id.
28
See id. at 32-40.
29
See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(1).
30
Id. at 56, Advisory Committee Notes 2010 Amendment Subdivision (g).
31
See Am. Scheduling Order at 3.
32
Docket no. 43, filed Mar. 4, 2016.
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?