Opinion
Case No. 2:12CV506 DAK
03-27-2013
VALERIE COOPER, Plaintiff, v. 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 individuals, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
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. The court has carefully reviewed the motion and written memoranda and exhibits 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.
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.
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.
--------
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).
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.
CONCLUSION
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.
BY THE COURT:
__________
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge