Albert L. Peia, Pro
Se
P.O. Box 370434
Reseda, CA
91337-0434
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
--------------------------
)
Albert L. Peia,
) Case No. CV 02-4507-DDP(RNBx)
Plaintiff )
)
-vs- )
) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
Bernal P. Ojeda, )
OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
Rene Lopez DeArenosa, ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
and John Does 1 – 15, )
Defendants )
--------------------------
FACTS
The instant case arises,
consistent with an attempt to
obstruct justice and
criminal investigations by the instant
defendants, from the
use of the U.S. mails to perpetrate a
fraud with the
direct consequence of damage to plaintiff’s
property and
business. The state law claims are included in
the within action in
light of the fact that said claims are
so related to the
RICO claims, deriving from the same
common nucleus of
operative fact so as to constitute the
same case or
controversy and hence, the exercise of supple-
mental jurisdiction
by the instant court thereof. The
subject clear,
incontrovertible crime(s) of perjury/fraud
by defendant
DeArenosa also mandate the criminal referral
of same forthwith.
Plaintiff’s Statement of Uncontroverted
Facts and
Conclusions of Law is immediately appended
hereto.
THE LAW
A motion for summary judgment
provides a procedure for
terminating without
trial actions in which “there is no
genuine issue of
material fact and … the moving party is
entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” F.R.Civ.R 56(c).
Moreover, a motion
for summary judgment “pierces” the
pleadings and puts
the opponent to the test of affirmative-
ly coming forward
with sufficient evidence for its claims
or defenses to
create a genuine issue for trial.
Celotex_Corp. v.
Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548,
2554(1986); see also
Schwarzer, Hirsh, & Barrans, The
Analysis and
Decision of Summary Judgment Motions, 139
FRD
441(1992). The
nonmovant must produce “significantly
probative”
evidence to defeat the summary judgment motion.
It is not enough for
the nonmovant to rely on mere allega-
tions or denials of
the movant’s pleading, United States v.
Shumway, 199
F3rd 1093, 1104(9th Cir.1999), or to present
unsworn documents or
papers containing nothing more that
the
nonmovant’s speculations. Slowiak v. Land O’Lakes,
Inc., 987 F.2nd
1293,1295-1297(7th Cir.1993)(ie., unexplained
contradictory
affidavits, etc.). Indeed, summary judgment
reinforces the good
faith pleading requirements of Rule 11
(and sanctions for
violations of same) because meritless
claims and defenses
can be easily pierced. F.R.Civ.P.
56,11.
In the case sub judice, defendant DeArenosa has merely
interposed (bad
faith) general denials (to the averments of
plaintiff’s
sworn verified complaint) which do not meet the
requisite burden of
showing a genuine issue of material
fact. Gasaway v.
Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.,26 F3d
957,960(9th
Cir.1994); United States v. Shumway, supra;
F.R.Civ.P. 56(e).
Indeed, sanctions (in addition to
judgment) pursuant
to F.R.Civ.P. 56(g) are appropriate as
to defendant
DeArenosa owing to his prior inconsistent,
perjurious
declaration. See generally, Acrotube, Inc. v.
J.K. Fin’l
Group, Inc., 653 F.Supp. 470(ND GA 1987); Van T.
Junkins &
Assoc. v. United States Indus., Inc., 736 F2d 656
(11th
Cir.1984). Moreover, policy considerations (against
perjury in the legal
process) mandate the entry of summary
judgment herein,
particularly where busy courts and movants
are (through said
bad faith denials predicated on perjury)
drawn into the
lengthy process of litigation thereby.
CONCLUSION
In sum, for all of the within and
foregoing reasons, in
the paramount
judicial interests of truth and justice,
summary judgment
should enter in favor of plaintiff, and a
criminal referral of
defendant’s crime should issue
forthwith.
Dated: 8-03-02 Signed:
_____________________________
Albert L. Peia, Pro Se