Opinion
Case No. 98-4187-DES.
Decided/Filed Date: May 23, 2000
Plaintiff Counselors: Altus Ray Kelly (Pro Se), Lansing Correctional Facility, Lansing, KS.
Defendant Counselors: Jack D. Rowe, Lathrop Gage, L.C., Kansas City, MO.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20). Because both parties have submitted information outside the pleadings, the court will rule on this motion as one for summary judgment. Both parties have fully briefed this matter and the court is prepared to rule.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The plaintiff initiated this action seeking over $200,000 in back wages to which he claims he is entitled as a result of an individual settlement agreement with the defendant. The plaintiff claims that this individual settlement agreement came as the result of a case filed against the defendant in 1978 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff apparently received $250 as a result of a settlement with the defendant in a different case involving a class action lawsuit involving racial discrimination. According to the plaintiff, he was allegedly hired by the defendant at that time. The plaintiff claims that his individual settlement agreement has a provision apparently entitling him wages in the event he became disabled, which he claims happened. The plaintiff, basing his claim on this individual settlement agreement, is seeking back wages for the years 1974 to 1986.
Additional facts will be discussed below, when needed.
II. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A court shall render summary judgment upon a showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The rule provides that "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The substantive law identifies which facts are material. Id. at 248. A dispute over a material fact is genuine when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant. Id. "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Id.
The movant has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat'l Lab., 992 F.2d 1033, 1036 (10th Cir. 1993). The movant may discharge its burden "by `showing' — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). The movant need not negate the nonmovant's claim. Id. at 323.
Once the movant makes a properly supported motion, the nonmovant must do more than merely show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and, by affidavits or depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (interpreting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). Rule 56(c) requires the court to enter summary judgment against a nonmovant who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof. Id. at 322. Such a complete failure of proof on an essential element of the nonmovant's case renders all other facts immaterial. Id. at 323.
A court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and allow the nonmovant the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., U.S. v. O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir. 1986) (stating that "[t]he court must consider factual inferences tending to show triable issues in the light most favorable to the existence of those issues"). The court's function is not to weigh the evidence, but merely to determine whether there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmovant for a finder of fact to return a verdict in that party's favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Essentially, the court performs the threshold inquiry of determining whether a trial is necessary. Id. at 250.
III. ANALYSIS
The plaintiff states numerous times in his reply briefs in this case that his lawsuit is not based upon the consent decree which was entered into by the defendant and a class of individuals, including the plaintiff, to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit. Rather, the plaintiff bases his claims solely on the individual agreement he claims he entered into with the defendant in Case No. 78-CV-4888 which was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff apparently claims that this individual agreement stated that he could file a claim for wages if he ever became disabled. The defendant denies that any individual settlement agreement exists between it and the plaintiff.
The burden is clearly on the plaintiff to come forward with some evidence to support his claim that he is entitled to relief under this individual settlement agree which he claims exists. However, the plaintiff has done nothing more than give a citation to the case number under which the settlement agreement allegedly arose. The defendant, however, has demonstrated to the court that the plaintiff's claims about the California case are only partially accurate.
The plaintiff is correct in stating that the case was filed by Mission Insurance Company against the defendant on December 21, 1978. However, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the lawsuit was not a racial discrimination suit against the defendant. It was a subrogation suit brought against the defendant for damage to property which was taken to trial and resulted in a defense verdict. The plaintiff was not a party to this lawsuit and there is no indication that he had any involvement in it whatsoever.
The plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence supporting his claim. Although not required to prove his case at this point in the proceedings, the law does require the plaintiff to come forward with some evidence to support his claim. The plaintiff, at the very least, must be able to produce some evidence that the individual settlement agreement does exist. However, he has failed to make even this initial showing.
The defendant, however, has clearly gone beyond what is required of it and produced strong evidence showing that the plaintiff's claim concerning the individual settlement agreement is without merit. The defendant has shown that the plaintiff is claiming a settlement agreement was created between the parties to this lawsuit to settle claims of racial discrimination in a case from California that has nothing to do with racial discrimination and has nothing to do with the plaintiff.
The court finds that the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of producing some evidence which would show that he may be entitled to relief. From the evidence before the court, the plaintiff's claim is clearly without merit. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
The court finds that the defendant is clearly entitled to summary judgment in this case. The plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to support his claim that an individual settlement agreement exists between the parties. The defendant, although not required to disprove the plaintiff's claim, has produced documents which show that the plaintiff's claims concerning the California case are false. Therefore, summary judgment will be entered on behalf of the defendant.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THIS COURT ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment (Doc. 20) is granted. Judgment shall be entered in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff shall take nothing on his claim.