Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealhearingmotionsummary judgmenttrustdue processobjection

motionsummary judgmentdue process

Related Cases

Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 845

Facts

In 1995, the Trustees filed a complaint against Krull Electric Co. for delinquent benefit fund contributions. After a judgment was entered in favor of the Trustees, they sought to recover the amount owed by filing a motion for turnover against Lee Electric Co., which was owned by the same principal as Krull Electric. The Trustees alleged that assets had been fraudulently transferred from Krull Electric to Lee Electric, leaving Krull Electric unable to satisfy the judgment. Lee Electric responded with a motion to quash, claiming improper service, but did not raise any substantive defenses at the hearing.

At some point between 1994 and 1997, Krull Electric transferred much of its assets to Lee Electric.

Issue

Did the district court deny Lee Electric due process by not allowing it to substantively respond to the motion for turnover, and was the denial of Lee Electric's motion to alter or amend an abuse of discretion?

Lee Electric argues that, by entering the March 30, 1998, order without allowing an opportunity substantively to rebut the motion for turnover, the district court denied it due process of law.

Rule

A court must provide parties with an opportunity to respond to motions that could result in a summary judgment, and a party's failure to respond does not constitute a lack of opportunity if they squandered it. The court reviews post-judgment proceedings for abuse of discretion.

A court cannot enter a summary judgment without notifying the parties of its intentions or allowing them an opportunity to cure or respond.

Analysis

The court found that Lee Electric had multiple opportunities to address the merits of the motion for turnover but failed to do so, instead raising a frivolous motion to quash based on improper service. The court concluded that Lee Electric's lack of substantive objections indicated it had no valid defenses to the motion for turnover. The court also noted that Lee Electric's claims of being misled by the district court were unfounded, as the court's statements did not imply that additional time would be granted for a response.

A careful review of the record plainly demonstrates to us that Lee Electric had multiple opportunities to address the merits of the motion for turnover.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Lee Electric was not denied due process and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to alter or amend.

Given Lee Electric's numerous opportunities to be heard, the district court could have rationally concluded that Lee Electric had no substantive arguments to raise, so the court did not violate its rights to due process by its grant of the motion for turnover.

Who won?

Trustees of the Electrical Insurance Trustees prevailed because the court found that Lee Electric had sufficient opportunity to respond to the motion for turnover and failed to present any substantive defenses.

The decisions of the district court are affirmed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, 55 A.L.R.2d 1055

In re Dresser Industries, Inc., 972 F.2d 540, 1992-2 Trade Cases P 69,952

In re Motors Liquidation Co., 430 B.R. 65

General Refractories Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 297

In re US Bentonite, Inc., 536 B.R. 948, 61 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 165