KeyBank, N.A. v. Valenzuela et al

Filing 27

ORDER granting 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Judgment to be entered by Clerk; Defendant Roberto Cazarez Valenzuela's Motion to Dismiss is Denied. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN) Modified on 2/10/2014 (DN). (cc to Def Roberto Cazarez Valenzuela)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
KEYBANK, N.A.,

CASE NO. C13-5621 RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
v.

ORDER GRANTING KEYBANK’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

11
12

GERARDO ADAM CAZAREZ
VALENZUELA, et al.,

13

[DKT. #19]

Defendant.

14
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Keybank’s “Response to Motion to
15
Dismiss and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Roberto Cazarez
16
Valenzuela” [Dkt. #19]. KeyBank alleges that its former employee, Defendant Gerardo Adam
17
Cazarez Valenzuela1 stole $4.3 million from its vault in Anchorage, and gave some $500,000 of
18
it to his brother, Defendant Roberto Cazarez Valenzuela. In this civil action, KeyBank seeks to
19
recover the money.
20
21
22
1

KeyBank differentiates between the brothers by calling one “Roberto” and the other
“Cazarez,” which does not seem to add clarity. This Order will differentiate using the parties’
24 first names—Roberto and Gerardo—for ease of reference.
23

ORDER GRANTING KEYBANK’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

1

Gerardo escaped to Mexico, where he was caught and convicted, and where he remains

2 imprisoned. Gerardo’s girlfriend, Defendant Bindas, accompanied him to Mexico but is
3 apparently in Arizona. She has been served but has not appeared. [See Dkt. #25]. Roberto
4 apparently lives in Lakewood, Washington.
5

KeyBank’s Motion was triggered by Roberto’s “Answer2 to Initial Disclosures and Final

6 Answer” [Dkt. #18], which claimed he had tendered repayment to KeyBank, though he did not
7 include any actual money in his “tender.” His Answer nevertheless asks the Court to consider
8 the debt discharged:
9
10
11 [Dkt. #18]. KeyBank treats this as a Motion to Dismiss.
12

KeyBank’s Motion points out that Roberto has not actually denied any of the claims in its

13 Complaint, and that he has effectively admitted (by failing to deny) that he is in possession of the
14 money. Roberto has not responded to the Motion.
15

KeyBank’s Motion is meritorious, and Roberto has admitted as much by failing to

16 Respond to it. LCR 7.
17

For the reasons articulated in it, KeyBank’s Motion is GRANTED. It is entitled to

18 judgment on its conversion and unjust enrichment claims as a matter of law, and Roberto’s
19 “tender” is not a defense as a matter of law.
20

>>

21

>

22
23

2

Roberto also filed an earlier Answer, Dkt. #13, which similarly claimed that the debt
24 had been discharged, and asked KeyBank to send him a receipt.

[DKT. #19] - 2

1
2

It is therefore ORDERED:
1.

Roberto Cazarez Valenzuela’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

3

2.

KeyBank’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #19] is GRANTED.

4

3.

There is no just cause for delaying entry of judgment against Roberto Cazarez

5 Valenzuela on these claims.
6
7

4.

KeyBank is awarded a Judgment against Roberto Cazarez Valenzuela for the

unpaid principal balance of $500,000, plus interest at the statutory rate of 12% per annum from
July 30, 2011 through the date of judgment. The judgment shall bear post-judgment interest at

8
9
10

the statutory rate of 12% per annum on the declining balance from the date of entry of judgment
until paid in full. The Clerk is directed to enter such a judgment.
5.

KeyBank may file a motion for the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs against

11 Roberto Cazarez Valenzuela within 14 days of the judgment.
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated this 10th day of February, 2014.

15

A

16

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

[DKT. #19] - 3