Rivard v. Gates & Rymph, Inc.
Filing
34
ORDER denying 13 Motion for Summary Judgment On All Claims. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/20/13. (kfinn, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 12-cv-00236-REB-KMT
ROGER RIVARD, JR., an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
GATES & RYMPH, INC., a Colorado corporation, a/k/a C.E.P. INC., a Colorado
corporation, d/b/a PLEASURES ENTERTAINMENT,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
On All Claims [#13]1 filed January 14, 2013. The plaintiff filed a response [#19]. I deny
the motion.2
I have jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and
§ 1367 (supplemental). I have reviewed the motion, the response, and the apposite
arguments, authorities, and evidence presented by the parties. It is apparent that there
1
“[#13]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
2
The issues raised by and inherent to the motion for summary judgment are fully briefed,
obviating the necessity for evidentiary hearing or oral argument. Thus, the motion stands submitted on the
briefs. Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) and (d). Geear v. Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th
Cir.1988) (holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by court's review of
documents submitted by parties).
exist genuine issues of material fact that are not appropriate for summary resolution.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment On All Claims [#13] filed January 14, 2013, is DENIED.
Dated March 20, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
