Rohwedder v. Harbor Steak and Seafood

D. Utah

Rohwedder v. Harbor Steak and Seafood

DecidedJuly 13, 2021

Docket2:19-cv-00737

StatusUnknown

This text of Rohwedder v. Harbor Steak and Seafood (Rohwedder v. Harbor Steak and Seafood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rohwedder v. Harbor Steak and Seafood, (D. Utah 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

BILLY L. ROHWEDDER, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

HARBOR STEAK AND SEAFOOD, Case No. 2:19-CV-737-TS-CMR Defendant. District Judge Ted Stewart Billy L. Rohwedder (“Plaintiff”) sued his former employer for discrimination and unlawful termination.1 On October 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for default judgment.2 On January 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero denied the motion for default judgment, finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim.3 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 4, 2021.4 To date, the amended complaint has not been served on the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant has not answered the amended complaint or responded to the motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is granted if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”5 Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment before he filed his amended complaint. The defendant has

1 Compl., Docket No. 3. 2 Docket Nos. 12, 13. 3 Docket No. 15. 4 Docket No. 16. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). not answered the amended complaint and no discovery has been conducted. Thus, the court cannot conclude that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact or that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Granting a motion for summary judgment at this juncture would be premature.° Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 12) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED this 13th day of July, 2021. BY THE COURT:

Ted Supa United es District Judge

6 See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (holding that a court should enter summary judgment “after adequate time for discovery”); Burke v. Utah Transit Auth., 462 F.3d 1253, 1264 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[S]ummary judgment [should] be refused where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

BILLY L. ROHWEDDER, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR Plaintiff, SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.

HARBOR STEAK AND SEAFOOD, Case No. 2:19-CV-737-TS-CMR Defendant. District Judge Ted Stewart Billy L. Rohwedder (“Plaintiff”) sued his former employer for discrimination and unlawful termination.1 On October 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for default judgment.2 On January 20, 2021, Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero denied the motion for default judgment, finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim.3 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 4, 2021.4 To date, the amended complaint has not been served on the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant has not answered the amended complaint or responded to the motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is granted if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”5 Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment before he filed his amended complaint. The defendant has

1 Compl., Docket No. 3. 2 Docket Nos. 12, 13. 3 Docket No. 15. 4 Docket No. 16. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). not answered the amended complaint and no discovery has been conducted. Thus, the court cannot conclude that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact or that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Granting a motion for summary judgment at this juncture would be premature.° Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 12) is DENIED without prejudice. DATED this 13th day of July, 2021. BY THE COURT:

Ted Supa United es District Judge

6 See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (holding that a court should enter summary judgment “after adequate time for discovery”); Burke v. Utah Transit Auth., 462 F.3d 1253, 1264 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[S]ummary judgment [should] be refused where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rohwedder v. Harbor Steak and Seafood, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rohwedder-v-harbor-steak-and-seafood-utd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack