Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff, Minerva Velez, was awarded summary judgment for her sexual harassment claim against Defendants, Awning Windows, Inc. et al. Defendants appealed the judgment.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A party’s repeated disregard for court-imposed deadlines will merit an adverse holding, despite the party’s eventual filing to oppose the holding.
A litigant who invokes Rule 56(d) must make an authoritative and timely proffer showing: (i) good cause for his inability to have discovered or marshalled the necessary facts earlier in the proceedings; (ii) a plausible basis for believing that additional facts probably exist and can be retrieved within a reasonable time; and (iii) an explanation of how those facts, if collected, will suffice to defeat the pending summary judgment motion.View Full Point of Law
Issue. The issue is the trial court’s granting of Plaintiff’s summary judgment was premature.
Held. The court affirmed the lower court’s summary judgment because Defendants did not timely respond to Plaintiff’s motion, nor did they file an appropriate extension of time per Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that explained why they needed more time. The reasons given by Defendants on appeal still do not merit a need for extension.
Discussion. The court outlined the long and habitual late filings and lack of cooperation by Defendants as the background for their reasoning as to why they would not consider their late filings for the summary judgment. The moral of the case, as the court noted, was that a party should not take court-imposed deadlines lightly.