Opinion
08-21-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBINSON BROS. CONSTR. INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Mike Rakoz, Robinson Bros. Constr. Inc., and Craig Sorenson's ("Defendants") motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 46).
On May 9, 2011, the Government filed a complaint against Defendants asserting numerous causes of action, including claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation. Dkt. 1. On July 17, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the misrepresentation claims. Dkt. 46. The Government failed to respond which the Court considers an admission that Defendants' motion has merit. Local Rule CR 7(b)(2).
With regard to the merits of the motion, the Government has failed to meet its burden. On an issue where the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party can prevail merely by pointing out to the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party meets the initial burden, the opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial in order to defeat the motion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
In this case, Defendants have shown that there is an absence of evidence to support the Government's claims for negligent and intentional misrepresentation. Dkt. 46 at 7-11. The Government has failed to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge