In re: Arnaldo Corsino Pagan Yalice Santiago Malave v. Arnaldo Corsino Pagan Yalice Santiago Malave Alejandro Oliveras Rivera, Trustee

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: October 25, 2016
• Docket: 15-00202
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2

4 IN RE: CASE NO. 10-05015 BKT 5 6 ARNALDO CORSINO PAGAN YALICE SANTIAGO MALAVE 7 Debtor(s) Chapter 13 8 9 PR ASSET PORTFOLIO 2013 1 INTERNATIONAL LLC 10

11 Plaintiff 12 13 Vs. ADVERSARY NO. 15-0202

14 ARNALDO CORSINO PAGAN 15 YALICE SANTIAGO MALAVE 16 ALEJANDRO OLIVERAS RIVERA, TRUSTEE 17

18 Defendants FILED & ENTERED ON 10/25/2016 19

22 OPINION AND ORDER 23 Before this court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on 3/23/2016 [Dkt. No. 24 25 26]. The Defendant requested an extension to oppose such Motion on 4/11/2016 [Dkt. No. 28]. The extension requested was granted and the time to reply was extended until 05/11/2016 [Dkt. No. 30]. No reply was filed until Plaintiff requested the court grant the unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment on 06/27/2016 [Dkt. No. 33]. At this point, the Defendant filed its Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment on 06/30/2016 [Dkt. No. 34]. 1 The opposition filed by the Defendant was untimely filed without a legitimate excuse. The 2 court will not consider the arguments presented in the untimely filed opposition based on its failure 3 to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). 4 5 For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is 6 GRANTED. 7 The role of summary judgment is to look behind the facade of the pleadings and assay the 8 9 parties' proof in order to determine whether a trial is required. Under Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule 56(c), made 10 applicable in bankruptcy by Fed.R.Bankr.P., Rule 7056, a summary judgment is available if the 11 pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the 12 13 affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving 14 party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. 15 Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2010). As to issues on which the movant, at trial, would be 16 17 compelled to carry the burden of proof, it must identify those portions of the pleadings which it 18 believes demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact. In re Edgardo Ryan Rijos & 19 Julia E. Cruz Nieves v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya & Citibank, 263 B.R. 382, 388 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2001). 20 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not embrace default judgment principles.1 Even when a 22 motion for entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Likewise, the court must still assess whether the 23

24 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is the basic procedure to be followed when there is a default in the course of 25 litigation. It tracks the ancient common law axiom that a default is an admission of all well‐pleaded allegations against the defaulting party. See generally B. Finberg, Annotation, Necessity of Taking Proof as to Liability Against Defaulting Defendant, 8 A.L.R.3d 1070 (1966). Other default provisions embrace that same philosophy. See, e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(a) (failure to appear and defend in response to a summons "will result in a judgment by default against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint"); cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f) (failure to attend pretrial conference); Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C) (failure to obey discovery orders). Motions for summary judgment, however, lack these ancient common law roots. See generally John A. Bauman, The Evolution of the Summary Judgment Procedure: An Essay Commemorating the Centennial Anniversary of Keating's Act, 31 Ind. L.J. 329 (1956). They are governed by Rule 56 under which the failure to respond to the motion does not alone discharge the burdens imposed on a moving party. Vermont Teddy Bear Company, Inc. v. 1‐800 Beargram Company, 373 F.3d 241 (2nd Cir.2004). 1 moving summary judgment is unopposed, the court is not relieved of its duty to decide whether the 2 movant is party has fulfilled its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material 3 fact. In an unopposed motion for summary judgment, the court is still obliged to consider the motion 4 5 on its merits, in light of the record as constituted, in order to determine whether judgment would be 6 legally appropriate. Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, 445 F.3d 19 (1st Cir.2006). 2 7 It is well-settled that “before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion, the court 8 9 must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it 10 to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Lopez v. Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 11 1510, 1517 (1st Cir.1991). Accordingly, we emphasize that courts "in considering a motion for 12 13 summary judgment, must review the motion, even if unopposed, and determine from what it has 14 before it whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law." Custer v. an 15 Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir.1993). 16 17 After reviewing the Plaintiff’s arguments, and the relevant law, this court determines that 18 there is no triable issue as to any material facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 19 matter of law. The court concludes after a review of the documents provided by Plaintiff that she has 20 21 met her burden in terms of producing adequate affirmative evidence. 22 Therefore, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1328(a), Defendants-Debtors, Arnaldo Corsino Pagan and 23 Yalice Santiago Malave, are not entitled to the discharge of the debt with Plaintiff P.R. Asset 24 Portfolio 2013 1 International LLC, as the claim has not been paid in full according to the terms of 25

2 Entry of a summary judgment motion as unopposed does not automatically give rise to a grant of summary judgment. Instead, “the district court [is] still obliged to consider the motion on its merits, in light of the record as constituted, in order to determine whether judgment would be legally appropriate.” Mullen v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 972 F.2d 446, 452 (1st Cir.1992). “Even when faced with an unopposed motion for summary judgment, a court still has the obligation to test the undisputed facts in the crucible of the applicable law in order 1 ||the approved stipulation and confirmed plan. The Defendants are precluded from cancellin 2 Plaintiff's lien over Property #10261, as legally described in the compliant, (Dkt. No. 1) unti 3 4 || Payment of their claim according to the terms of the plan. 5 SO ORDERED 6 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 25th day of October, 2016. 7

° Se Hike 10 Brian K. Tester U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

to ascertain whether judgment is warranted.” Mendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1s Cir.1990); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)); Pico Vidal v. Ruiz Alvarado, 377 B.R. 788 (D.P.R., 2007).