United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
WHITEHURST MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL J. JUNEAU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment,
Rec. Doc. , filed by Interpleader-Defendant,
Dominique's Livestock Market, Inc. (Dominique's).
Plaintiff, Hartford Fire Insurance. Co., deposited $85,
000.00 into the registry of the Court representing the penal
value of bond number 87 BSB FF6739 naming R&W Farms, LLC
as principal, under the Packers and Stockyard Act, 7 U.S.C.
§ 181, et seq. This Court previously ordered
disbursement of $3, 968.40 to attorneys for Plaintiff for
fees and costs. Dominique's seeks summary judgment
awarding it the balance of the bond proceeds in the registry
of the Court.
Hartford Fire Insurance Co., issued bond number 87 BSB
FF6795, with R&W Farms, LLC as principal, pursuant to the
Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 181 et
seq. The bond had a penal sum of $85, 000.00. Plaintiff
alleges in its Complaint that on November 29, 2017, Mansura
Livestock and Kinder Livestock submitted claims on the bond
in the amounts of $351, 625.40 and $373, 004.61,
respectively. On December 8, 2017, Dominique's submitted
a claim on the bond in the amount of $116, 069.69. Each
claimant alleged it had sold livestock to R&W Farms for
which R&W Farms failed to make payment.
April 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint for
Interpleader to determine the respective rights of the
claimants to the bond proceeds. Defendants, Kinder and
Mansura, answered the complaint on May 2, 2018. Defendant,
Dominique's, answered the complaint on May 3, 2018.
7, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave
to deposit the sum of $85, 000.00 into the registry of the
Court, discharged Plaintiff from any further liability under
the bond, and dismissed Plaintiff from this action with
prejudice. The Court further ordered that Plaintiff was
entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. On September 25,
2018, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion to disburse
$3, 968.40 for its attorney's fees and costs in bringing
September 20, 2018, Dominique's served upon Mansura and
Kinder Request for Admissions. Neither Defendant responded.
On November 18, 2018, Dominique's filed the instant
Motion for Summary Judgment, along with its Statement of
Uncontested Facts and the Affidavit of John E. Dominique, an
officer of Dominique's.
Mansura and Kinder, had until October 11, 2018 to file their
opposition to Dominique's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Both Defendants failed to do so. On January 3, 2019, this
matter was reassigned to the undersigned. Pursuant to a
minute entry of January 4, 2019, the Court granted
Defendants, Mansura and Kinder, until January 15, 2019 to
file their opposition to Dominique's Motion for Summary
Judgment. As of the date of this ruling, neither Mansura nor
Kinder has filed an opposition.
for Summary Judgment Standard
motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the
pleadings, depositions and affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-movant, the court determines that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587
(1986). A dispute of material fact is
‘‘genuine'' if the evidence would allow a
reasonable jury to find in favor of the non-movant.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). Initially, the movant bears the burden of identifying
those portions of the pleadings and discovery in the record
which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
properly supported motion for summary judgment has been made,
the opposing party “must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Initially, the party
moving for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of
any genuine issues of material fact. When a party seeking
summary judgment bears the burden of proof at trial, it must
come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if such evidence were uncontroverted at
trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. As to issues which
the non-moving party has the burden of proof at trial, the
moving party may satisfy this burden by demonstrating the
absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party's
claim. Id. If the moving party fails to carry this
burden, his motion must be denied.
moving party succeeds, however, the burden shifts to the
non-moving party to show that there is a genuine issue for
trial. Id. at 322-23. Once the burden shifts to the
respondent, he must direct the attention of the court to
evidence in the record and set forth specific facts
sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of
material fact requiring a trial. Celotex, 477 U.S.
at 324; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(e). There must be sufficient
evidence favoring the non-moving party to support a verdict
for that party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Wood
v. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry., 958 F.2d 95, 97 (5th
Cir. 1992). There is no genuine issue of material fact if,
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, no reasonable trier of fact could find for
the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). If no
issue of fact is presented and if the mover is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law, the court is required ...