In re: Atanagildo Torres Hernandez and Eneri Padilla Sanchez

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: February 21, 2019
• Docket: 18-03854
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

3 IN RE: CASE NO. 18-03854-BKT13 4 ATANAGILDO TORRES HERNANDEZ Chapter 13 ENERI PADILLA SANCHEZ 5

6 xx-xx-7552 7 xx-xx-7893 Debtor(s) FILED & ENTERED ON FEB/21/2019 8 9 OPINION AND ORDER 10 Before the court is Debtors’ Motion For Summary Judgment filed on 11 12/12/2018, [Dkt. No. 35]. For the reasons set forth below, the Debtors’ Motion 12 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 13 14 The role of summary judgment is to look behind the facade of the pleadings 15 and assay the parties' proof in order to determine whether a trial is required. 16 Under Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 56(c), made applicable in bankruptcy by Fed. R. 17 Bankr. P., Rule 7056, a summary judgment is available if the pleadings, 18 depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with 19 the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material 20 fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. 21 R. Civ. P. 56(c); Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 4 (1st 22 Cir. 2010). As to issues on which the movant, at trial, would be compelled to 23 carry the burden of proof, it must identify those portions of the pleadings 24 which it believes demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 25 In re Edgardo Ryan Rijos & Julia E. Cruz Nieves v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya & 26 Citibank, 263 B.R. 382, 388 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2001). 27 28 29 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not embrace default judgment 2 principles1. Even when a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the court 3 is not relieved of its duty to decide whether the movant is entitled to judgment 4 as a matter of law. Likewise, the court must still assess whether the moving 5 party has fulfilled its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue 6 of material fact. In an unopposed motion for summary judgment, the court is 7 still obliged to consider the motion on its merits, in light of the record as 8 constituted, in order to determine whether judgment would be legally 9 appropriate. Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, 445 F.3d 19 (1st Cir.2006).2 10 It is well-settled that “before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion, 11 the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate 12 undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Lopez v. 13 Corporacion Azucarera de Puerto Rico, 938 F.2d 1510, 1517 (1st Cir.1991). 14 Accordingly, we emphasize that "in considering a motion for summary judgment, 15 [courts] must review the motion, even if unopposed, and determine from what it 16 has before it whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a 17 matter of law." Custer v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir.1993). 18 19 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is the basic procedure to be followed when there is a default in the course of 20 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 21 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 22 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, 23 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 24 governed by Rule 56 under which the failure to respond to the motion does not alone discharge the burdens imposed 25 on a moving party. Vermont Teddy Bear Company, Inc. v. 1-800 Beargram Company, 373 F.3d 241 (2nd Cir.2004).

26 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 27 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 28 judgment, a court still has the obligation to test the undisputed facts in the crucible of the applicable law in order to ascertain whether judgment is warranted.” Mendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1st 29 Cir.1990); Fed. R .Civ. P. 56(e)); Pico Vidal v. Ruiz Alvarado, 377 B.R. 788 (D.P.R., 2007). 1 After reviewing Debtors’ arguments, and the relevant law, the court 2\|idetermines that there is no triable issue as to any material facts and that the 3|]|moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court concludes 4||after a review of the documents provided by the Debtors that it has met its 5||burden in terms of producing adequate affirmative evidence. 6 THEREFORE, the Debtors’ Objection to Proof of Claim filed by Popular Auto, 7 filed on 07/27/2018, [Dkt. No. 10] is granted. The proof of claim No. 3-1 is 8 reduced in the amount of $6,357.04. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 21 day of February, 2019. 11 12 13 AD

15 United States Bankruptcy Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29