Ruppel v. Basmajian et al
Filing
124
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying 116 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 12/20/2018. (mas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MATT J. RUPPEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
THOMAS D. BASMAJIAN, an individual,
1415 SOUTH MAIN STREET, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company,
BLACK SQUARE REAL ESTATE, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, the BASMAJIAN
RUPPEL GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, a
Utah General Partnership,
Case No. 2:14-cv-728-DB
District Judge Dee Benson
Defendants.
Before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Parol Evidence).
(Dkt. No. 116.) The court has reviewed the briefing submitted by the parties. Pursuant to civil
rule 7-1(f) of the United States District Court for the District of Utah Rules of Practice, the court
elects to determine the motion on the basis of the written memoranda and finds that oral
argument would not be helpful or necessary. DUCivR 7-1(f).
The background facts relating to these parties and this action have been set forth in some
detail in the court’s previous rulings. (See Dkt. Nos. 60, 87, 108.) On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff
moved for summary judgment regarding whether a general partnership existed between the
parties. (Dkt. No. 34.) The court denied that motion on November 22, 2016. (Dkt. No. 60.) On
February 10, 2017, Defendant moved for a ruling that a general partnership did not exist as a
matter of law. (Dkt. No. 67.) The court denied that motion on August 15, 2017. (Dkt. No. 87.)
On April 6, 2018, the court granted Defendant’s motion in limine, holding that evidence varying
the express terms of the relevant written agreements would not be allowed at trial. (Dkt. No.
108.) Defendant now seeks partial summary judgment that a general partnership did not exist
between the parties. (Dkt. No. 116.)
“The law of the case doctrine posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that
decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”
United States v. Monsisvais, 946 F.2d 114, 115 (10th Cir. 1991)(internal quotations omitted).
Here, the court has already held that there is a genuine issue of material fact with respect to
whether a general partnership existed between the parties. Defendant has not provided any new
evidence to challenge that ruling. The court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion in limine did
not alter that decision either. The decision thus continues to govern the issue of whether a
general partnership existed. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
denied pursuant to the law of the case doctrine.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby
DENIED.
DATED this 20th day of December, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
Dee Benson
United States District Judge
2
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?