Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Rabeh
| Decision Date | 25 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6858 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM RABEH and VICTORIA RABEH, Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Henry S. Perkin, M.J.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. In conjunction with the motion, Plaintiff filed its Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and exhibits thereto, as well as Plaintiff's Statement of Material, Undisputed Facts. Defendants did not file a response to motion or statement of facts, despite several reminders from the Court. Having reviewed the motion and pertinent filings pertaining to this matter, the Court is prepared to rule.
Plaintiff Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ("Commonwealth"), a title insurance underwriter, commenced this action against Defendants William Rabeh and Victoria Rabeh on December 7, 2012 by filing a Complaint in this District. According to the Complaint,1 Commonwealth seeks reimbursement from Defendants for a payment it was requiredto make to its policy holder, Diana Rabeh, Defendants' daughter, under a policy of title insurance ("the Policy") she had purchased. In an effort to recoup its payment under the Policy, Commonwealth has asserted three Counts against Defendants: breach of the warranty deed; common law indemnification; and unjust enrichment.
Defendants initially defaulted on the Complaint, failing for many months to answer or otherwise respond. However, after a motion for default judgment was filed by Commonwealth, and following the entry of a November 14, 2013 Order by the Honorable Lawrence F. Stengel, which directed Defendants to file an answer to the Complaint within 21 days or suffer entry of default judgment, Defendants each filed Answers to Complaint, which are identical. By Order dated December 16, 2013, Judge Stengel denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment.
On March 7, 2014, a Rule 16 conference was held on the record before Judge Stengel. Shortly thereafter, and with the consent of all parties, the action was transferred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of a final judgment.A subsequent Rule 16 conference was held before the undersigned on April 10, 2014, and a Rule 16 Scheduling Order was issued by the undersigned on that same date. More specifically, the Court directed that Defendants file any Third Party Complaint on or before May 15, 2014; that discovery be completed by August 15, 2014; and that dispositive motions be filed and served on or before September 15, 2014. Although Defendants had expressed an interest in joining M&T2 as a third party defendant, they did not file a Third Party Complaint.
During the course of discovery, Commonwealth served Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admissions upon Defendants. On August 29, 2014, Defendants served identical responses to the Requests for Admissions, and also served objections and responses to the Commonwealth's Requests for Production of Documents. With respect to the requests for production, Defendants responded with numerous objections and promised to produce "all responsive, non-privileged documents in their possession." However, as represented by Commonwealth, as of the date of filing its motion for summary judgment, Defendants did not produce a single document, or make the required initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment were filed on September 12, 2014. See Docket No. 23 and 23-1. In accordance with this Court's April 10, 2014 Rule 16 Scheduling Order,3 Plaintiff's Statementof Material, Undisputed Facts was filed simultaneously with the motion and brief. See Docket Nos. 20 and 23-2. Defendants were required to file their response to the motion for summary judgment on or before October 15, 2014. See Docket No. 20. Defendants failed to do so. Giving the Defendants, who are pro se, the benefit of the doubt, this Court sua sponte granted them an extension of time in which to respond by Order dated December 4, 2014, directing that Defendants file their response to the pending motion for summary judgment on or before December 18, 2014. See Docket No. 24. In so doing, this Court reminded Defendants that the papers opposing the motion for summary judgment shall include a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs set forth in the statement submitted by Commonwealth, as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried. See Docket No. 24. Defendants were further advised that all material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party may be taken by the Court as admitted unless controverted by the opposing party. See Docket No. 24.
On December 16, 2014, a bankruptcy case concerning Defendants William Rabeh and Victoria Rabeh was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. See Docket No. 25. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) and § 301, the case before this Court was automatically stayed upon the filing of Defendants' Voluntary Petition. See Docket No. 25. As a result of the automatic stay, this matter was marked as closed for statistical purposes and placed in the Civil Suspense file by Order dated December 17, 2014. See Docket No. 26. The December 17, 2014Order further directed that this matter would be restored to the trial docket when the action was in a status so that it may proceed to final disposition. See Docket No. 26.
On October 15, 2015, following notice and hearing, the Honorable Richard E. Fehling of the United States Bankruptcy Court dismissed the bankruptcy case filed by Defendants William Rabeh and Victoria Rabeh. By Order dated October 26, 2015, this Court removed this matter from civil suspense, and directed that Defendants William Rabeh and Victoria Rabeh file and serve their response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on or before November 25, 2015. See Docket No. 27. In so doing, this Court reminded Defendants that the papers opposing the motion for summary judgment shall include a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs set forth in the statement submitted by plaintiff, as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried. See Docket No. 27. Defendants were again advised that all material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party may be taken by the Court as admitted unless controverted by the opposing party. See Docket No. 27. Defendants did not respond to the pending motion for summary judgment, and they did not file a response to the Commonwealth's statement of material facts.
By Rule 16 Scheduling Order of the undersigned dated April 10, 2014, any party in this litigation filing a motion for summary judgment was required to file a brief, together with "a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts, in numbered paragraphs, as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried." See Docket No. 20 at Footnote 1. The concise statement of facts was required to be supported by citations to therecord.
See Docket No. 20 at Footnote 1. Moreover, our Status Conference Order provided that "[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party may be taken by the Court as admitted unless controverted by the opposing party." See Docket No. 20 at Footnote 1.
In this case, Commonwealth filed a concise statement of facts in support of its motion for summary judgment on September 12, 2014. See Docket No. 23-2. However, despite several Orders from this Court directing Defendants to file a response to the pending motion for summary judgment, Defendants failed to do so, and they also did not file any concise statement in opposition to Commonwealth's concise statement as required by our Orders of April 10, 2014, December 4, 2014, and October 26, 2015.4 Accordingly, the factual assertions set forth by Commonwealth in its statement filed September 12, 2014 are deemed admitted. See Binder v.PPL Servs. Corp., No. Civ.A. 06-2977, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103814 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2009) (Perkin, M.J.); Higgins v. Hosp. Cent. Servs., No. Civ.A. 04-74, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24907 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2004) (Gardner, J.); Kelvin Cryosystems, Inc. v. Lightnin, No. Civ.A. 03-881, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23298 (E.D. Pa. November 15, 2004) (Gardner, J.).
Our requirement for a concise statement and a responsive concise statement is consistent with Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition Rule 83(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
A judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent with federal law, rules adopted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072 and 2075, and the district's local rules. No sanction or other disadvantage may be imposed for noncompliance with any requirement not in federal law, federal rules, or local district rules unless the alleged violator has been furnished in the particular case with actual notice of the requirement.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 83(b). Thus, even if our requirement for a separate concise statement is not consistent with Rule 56, we gave Defendants actual and repeated notice of our requirement, and they did not comply. Binder, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial