Noreen Wiscovitch-Rentas, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Agustin Lugo, Inc. v. Villa Capri Auto Gallery, Inc.

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: May 29, 2020
• Docket: 18-00106
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR 5 THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 3 1 IN RE: CASE NO. 16-07692-BKT7 Chapter 7 5 6 AGUSTIN LUGO, INC. 7 Debtor(s) 9 1) NOREEN WISCOVITCH-RENTAS, Adversary No. 18-00106 CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE *° || OF AGUSTIN LUGO, INC. 11 Plaintiff(s) 12 vs. 13 14 || VILLA CAPRI AUTO GALLERY, INC. FILED AND ENTERED ON 05/29/2020 15 Defendant 16 7 OPINION AND ORDER 18 Before this Court is Plaintiff Noreen Wiscovitch-Rentas, Esq.’s Motion for Summar 19 Judgment [Dkt. No. 44]. This Motion was unopposed by the Defendant despite receiving notice o 20 the Motion and time to object. For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summar 21 Judgment is GRANTED, in part. 23 The role of summary judgment is to look behind the facade of the pleadings and assay the 24 || parties’ proof in order to determine whether a trial is required. Under Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 56(c), 2° || made applicable in bankruptcy by Fed. R. Bankr. P., Rule 7056, a summary judgment 1s availabl if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with th

1 || affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movin 2 party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2010). As to issues on which the movant, at trial, would b

; || compelled to carry the burden of proof, it must identify those portions of the pleadings which 1 6 || believes demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact. In re Edgardo Ryan Rijos 7 |! Julia E. Cruz Nieves v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya & Citibank, 263 B.R. 382, 388 (B.A.P. Ist Cir. ° 2001). 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 does not embrace default judgment principles!. Eve

11 || when a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the court is not relieved of its duty to decid 12 || whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Likewise, the court must asses 13 |] whether the moving party has fulfilled its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issu of material fact. In an unopposed motion for summary judgment, the court is still obliged t 15 16 consider the motion on its merits, in light of the record as constituted, in order to determine whethe 17 ||judgment would be legally appropriate. Aguiar-Carrasquillo v. Agosto-Alicea, 445 F.3d 19 (1s 18 || Cir.2006). It is well-settled that “before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion, th court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed fact entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Lopez v. Corporacion Azucarera de Puert

5 || Rico. 938 F.2d 1510, 1517 (st Cir.1991). Accordingly, we emphasize that "in considering 23 || motion for summary judgment, [courts] must review the motion, even if unopposed, and determin 24 |) from what it has before it whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matte of law." Custer v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir.1993). After reviewing the Plaintiff’s arguments, and the relevant law, this court determine

1 || that there is no triable issue as to any material facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgmen as a matter of law. The court concludes after a review of the documents provided by Plaintiff tha 3 she has met her burden in terms of producing adequate affirmative evidence. Therefore, the cou 4 ; || determines that the Defendant holds property of the estate and that the turnover of such propert 6 ||1s warranted under § 542 of the Bankruptcy Code. As to the Plaintiffs request for attorney’s fee 7 |! and costs, said request is denied. Clerk to issue a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff accordingly. 8 SO ORDERED. 9 In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 29 day of May 2020. 10 11 b ea Hit 13 Brian K. Tester U.S. Bankruptcy Judge 14 1s 'Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is the basic procedure to be followed when there is a default in the course o 16 litigation. It tracks the ancient common law axiom that a default is an admission of all well-pleaded allegations agains the defaulting party. See_generally, B. Finberg, Annotation, Necessity of Taking Proof as to Liability Agains 17 || 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 sudgment by defaul 1g || against the defendant for the relief demanded in the complaint"); cf. Fed. R .Civ. P. 16(f) (failure to attend pretria conference); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) (failure to obey discovery orders). Motions for summary judgment, however. 19 || lack these ancient common law roots. See generally, John A. Bauman, The Evolution of the Summary Judgmen Procedure: An Essay Commemorating the Centennial Anniversary of Keating's Act, 31 Ind. L.J. 329 (1956). They ar 29 |} governed by Rule 56 under which the failure to respond to the motion does not alone discharge the burdens impose on moving party. Vermont Teddy Bear Company, Inc. v. 1-800 Beargram Company, 373 F.3d 241 (2nd Cir.2004). 21 2 Entry of a summary judgment motion as unopposed does not automatically give rise to a grant of summary judgment. 22 || Instead, “the district court [is] still obliged to consider the motion on its merits, in light of the record as constituted, 1 order to determine whether judgment would be legally appropriate.” Mullen v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 97 23 || F.2d 446, 452 (1st Cir.1992). “Even when faced with an unopposed motion for summary judgment, a court still ha the obligation to test the undisputed facts in the crucible of the applicable law in order to ascertain whether judgmen 24 warranted.” Mendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, 900 F.2d 4, 7 (1st Cir.1990); Fed. R .Civ. P. 56(e)); Pic Vidal v. Ruiz Alvarado, 377 B.R. 788 (D.P.R., 2007). 25