Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Marquez v. Cable One, Inc., 463 F.3d 1118, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Cable One filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in response to Robert Marquez's retaliation lawsuit, presenting evidence that it had legitimate reasons to investigate Marquez for embezzlement before he filed his original discrimination suit. 2) The district court granted summary judgment for Cable One, finding that Marquez had adequate notice the motion could be treated as one for summary judgment but failed to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit requesting time for discovery or explain how discovery could help oppose the motion. 3) The appellate court affirmed, noting that a defendant can file for summary judgment before answering, that Marquez had explicit notice of potential conversion to summary judgment motion, and that the

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Marquez v. Cable One, Inc., 463 F.3d 1118, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    22 views7 pages
    1) Cable One filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in response to Robert Marquez's retaliation lawsuit, presenting evidence that it had legitimate reasons to investigate Marquez for embezzlement before he filed his original discrimination suit. 2) The district court granted summary judgment for Cable One, finding that Marquez had adequate notice the motion could be treated as one for summary judgment but failed to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit requesting time for discovery or explain how discovery could help oppose the motion. 3) The appellate court affirmed, noting that a defendant can file for summary judgment before answering, that Marquez had explicit notice of potential conversion to summary judgment motion, and that the

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-09-08 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 463 F.3d 1118 Docket: 05-2257

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Cable One filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in response to Robert Marquez's retaliation lawsuit, presenting evidence that it had legitimate reasons to investigate Marquez for embezzlement before he filed his original discrimination suit. 2) The district court granted summary judgment for Cable One, finding that Marquez had adequate notice the motion could be treated as one for summary judgment but failed to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit requesting time for discovery or explain how discovery could help oppose the motion. 3) The appellate court affirmed, noting that a defendant can file for summary judgment before answering, that Marquez had explicit notice of potential conversion to summary judgment motion, and that the

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    22 views7 pages

    Marquez v. Cable One, Inc., 463 F.3d 1118, 10th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Cable One filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in response to Robert Marquez's retaliation lawsuit, presenting evidence that it had legitimate reasons to investigate Marquez for embezzlement before he filed his original discrimination suit. 2) The district court granted summary judgment for Cable One, finding that Marquez had adequate notice the motion could be treated as one for summary judgment but failed to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit requesting time for discovery or explain how discovery could help oppose the motion. 3) The appellate court affirmed, noting that a defendant can file for summary judgment before answering, that Marquez had explicit notice of potential conversion to summary judgment motion, and that the

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 7

    F I L E D

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit
    PUBLISH

    September 8, 2006

    UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS

    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court

    TENTH CIRCUIT

    RO BERT L. M AR QU EZ,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.

    No. 05-2257

    CABLE ONE, IN C.,


    Defendant-Appellee.

    A PPE AL FR OM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


    FOR T HE D ISTRICT OF NEW M EXICO
    (D.C. No. CIV-04-1238 JP/ACT)

    Submitted on the briefs: *


    Dennis W . M ontoya, M ontoya Law, Inc., Rio Rancho, New M exico, for PlaintiffAppellant.
    John D. Giansello, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, New York, for
    Defendant-Appellee.

    Before TA CH A, Chief Judge, OBRIEN, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.

    M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judge.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    Plaintiff Robert M arquez appeals from the district courts order granting
    summary judgment to his former employer, Cable O ne, Inc., on his claim that it
    retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity under Title VII of the
    Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17. W e affirm.
    Plaintiffs complaint alleged that, in retaliation for an employment
    discrimination law suit he filed against Cable O ne in 2000, Cable O ne falsely
    accused him of embezzlement of company property. Plaintiff filed his original
    employment discrimination law suit in M ay 2000 and the suit was settled in
    September 2000. He was indicted for embezzlement of Cable O ne property in
    June 2003, but the criminal charges were dismissed in 2004.
    Before filing an answer, Cable One responded to the complaint by filing a
    motion entitled: Notice of M otion and M otion to Dismiss the Complaint for
    Failure to State a Claim or for Summary Judgment, Aplt. App. at 8, with an
    accompanying memorandum and evidentiary materials. In this motion, Cable One
    presented the following evidence. Several months before plaintiff filed his
    original discrimination lawsuit, Cable One became aware that a significant
    number of households in a New M exico town were receiving free cable.
    It launched an investigation and ultimately concluded some of its installers in
    this town were installing free cable for their personal profit. Plaintiff was not the
    focus of the investigation, but a witness and other evidence implicated him in the
    -2-

    scheme. Cable One contacted the FBI in June 2000, which took no action.
    A year later, the New M exico state police began an investigation, not initiated by
    Cable One, which led to plaintiffs 2003 indictment.
    Plaintiff filed an objection to Cable O nes motion, arguing that it was not a
    valid motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because it referenced
    materials outside of the complaint. Plaintiff acknowledged that the motion should
    properly be converted to a motion for summary judgment, but argued that such a
    motion could not be filed prior to the filing of an answer. He further argued that
    the summary judgment motion should be denied because he had not had a realistic
    opportunity to discover information essential to opposing the motion. He did not,
    however, file an affidavit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), which
    allows a party to obtain a deferral of a summary judgment ruling pending further
    discovery if the affidavit identifies the probable facts not available, the steps
    taken to obtain these facts, and how additional time will enable the plaintiff to
    rebut the defendants allegations. See Com m. for the First Amendment v.
    Campbell, 962 F.2d 1517, 1522-23 (10th Cir. 1992) (describing requirements of
    Rule 56(f) affidavit).
    The district court ruled that plaintiff had explicit notice from the title and
    content of Cable Ones motion that it could be converted into a motion for
    summary judgment. Because plaintiff had failed to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit, the
    court rejected his argument that he had not had an opportunity to conduct
    -3-

    discovery. It ruled that summary judgment was otherwise appropriate, because


    Cable One had presented a facially legitimate rationale for its investigation and
    police report, and plaintiff had not presented any evidence that this explanation
    was pretext. See Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193,
    1202 (10th Cir. 2006) (describing burden-shifting analysis of retaliation claim at
    summary judgment stage).
    On appeal, plaintiff contends that the district court erred in granting
    summary judgment because the rules of civil procedure do not permit such a
    motion before an answ er has been filed, and if they do, he did not have adequate
    notice before the conversion. W e review for an abuse of discretion a district
    courts decision to consider evidence beyond the pleadings and convert a motion
    to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the
    Diocese of Colo., 289 F.3d 648, 654 (10th Cir. 2002). W e find no merit to
    plaintiffs claims of error.
    Rule 56 expressly states that a motion for summary judgment can be filed
    by a defending party at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). Courts and
    comm entators have acknowledged that no answer need be filed before a
    defendants motion for summary judgment may be entertained. INVST Fin.
    Group, Inc. v. Chem-Nuclear Sys., Inc., 815 F.2d 391, 404 (6th Cir. 1987);
    see also Rohner v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 225 F.2d 272, 274 (10th Cir. 1955)
    (recognizing validity of motion for summary judgment filed in lieu of an answer);
    -4-

    10A Charles Alan W right, Arthur R. M iller, M ary Kay Kane, Federal Practice &
    Procedure 2718 at 301 (3d ed. 1998) (A defending party is not required by the
    rule to file an answer before moving for summary judgment.).
    Plaintiff makes a related argument that a motion for summary judgment
    does not toll the time for filing an answer. Cable One filed its motion as a
    Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion, however, which clearly does toll the time to
    answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4) and 12(b). Thus, the motion did toll the
    time to file an answer until the district court converted it to a motion for summary
    judgment and resolved the motion. Cf. Wright, M iller & Kane 2718 at 303-04
    (indicating that the tolling provision in Rule 12(a) should, by analogy, apply to a
    summary judgment motion filed prior to an answ er); First Natl Bank of Ariz. v.
    Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253 (1968) (affirming summary judgment where
    defendant had never filed an answer in six years of litigation).
    Plaintiff next contends that he did not have adequate notice that the motion
    would be converted into a motion for summary judgment. [Rule] 12(b) states
    that, where a Rule 12(b)(6) motion raises matters outside the pleadings, it shall be
    treated as a motion for summary judgment subject to the requirements of [Rule]
    56. Rule 56(c) in turn requires that the opposing party be given ten days notice
    prior to hearing of the motion within which to file opposing affidavits. Bldg. &
    Constr. Dept v. Rockwell Intl Corp., 7 F.3d 1487, 1495-96 (10th Cir. 1993).
    Here, the title of Cable Ones motion stated it was a [n]otice of [m]otion, and
    -5-

    it stated that was a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, a motion for summary
    judgment, and it included evidentiary materials outside of the complaint.
    Aplt. App. at 8-230. Thus, plaintiff had explicit notice that the district court
    would convert it to a motion for summary judgment. See 11 James W m. M oore,
    M oores Federal Practice 56.30[4] at p. 56-230 (3d ed. 2006) ([c]ourts have
    concluded that a court is not required to give notice of its intention to convert a
    Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a summary judgment motion when the motion was
    styled in the alternative.). M oreover, plaintiffs response to the motion clearly
    demonstrated that he was aware that the motion would be converted to a Rule 56
    motion for summary judgment. See Rockwell, 7 F.3d at 1496 (holding that
    plaintiff had adequate notice of conversion where his response to the motion to
    dismiss demonstrated he was aware the court could convert it to a motion for
    summary judgment). Thus, the district court correctly ruled that plaintiff had
    adequate notice of the conversion.
    [T]here is no requirement in Rule 56 . . . that summary judgment not be
    entered until discovery is complete. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Contl Cas. Co.,
    26 F.3d 1508, 1518 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff did not file a
    Rule 56(f) affidavit demonstrating why he could not yet present evidence in
    opposition to the motion, nor did he request a continuance pending completion of
    discovery, nor did he even inform the district court in his pleadings how
    discovery would help him oppose Cable O nes motion. W e have held that,
    -6-

    [w]here a party opposing summary judgment and seeking a continuance pending


    completion of discovery fails to take advantage of the shelter provided by
    Rule 56(f) by filing an affidavit, there is no abuse of discretion in granting
    summary judgment if it is otherwise appropriate. Pasternak v. Lear Petroleum
    Exploration, Inc., 790 F.2d 828, 832-33 (10th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff does not
    contend that summary judgment was otherw ise inappropriate on the merits.
    His remaining arguments are all based on his incorrect premise that it was error to
    dismiss his complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6).
    As this clearly was not the basis of the district courts grant of summary judgment
    under R ule 56, these arguments are not relevant.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

    -7-

    You might also like