United States District Court, D. Montana, Butte Division
JEFFREY S. RAPP, Plaintiff,
HAMPTON BY HILTON, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
JEREMIAH C. LYNCH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jeffrey Rapp, appearing pro se, commenced this action
challenging Defendant Hampton by Hilton's conduct in
allegedly making his employment with Hampton intolerable. As
the Court previously summarized, Rapp generally alleges
Hampton “established and maintained a hostile and
unsafe work environment” that purportedly resulted in
Rapp's “inability to work.”
Order entered October 31, 2017, the Court granted
Hampton's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e) motion for a more definite
statement. The Court ordered Rapp to file, on or before
November 15, 2017, a more definite statement of his pleading.
in the referenced Order the Court noted Rapp had not filed
his preliminary pretrial statement, and had not appeared at
the October 31, 2017 Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 pretrial conference, all
as directed by the Court's Order entered August 30, 2017.
Consequently, the Court ordered Rapp to file a brief, on or
before November 15, 2017, showing cause why this action
should not be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for his
failure to prosecute this case and failure to comply with the
August 30, 2017 Order.
November 15, 2017, Rapp filed two documents: (1) a
“Request for Summary Judgment”; and (2) his
“Court Order Compliance”. In his summary judgment
document Rapp requests the Court enter judgment against
Hampton for the full amount he requested in his pleading. In
support of the request, Rapp contends Hampton has deceived
the Court to hide the truth in this case and avoid justice.
He asserts Hampton's general manager, her family, and her
friends engaged in unethical and unlawful actions against
him. He suggests Hampton is aware of the unlawful conduct,
and that Hampton refused to remedy the situation. Rapp
asserts Hampton has stood by false accusations made against
him and refuses to recognize the truth on various matters.
second document, in an apparent attempt to file a more
definite statement, Rapp merely asserts that Hampton
“is well aware of the issues and circumstances”
giving rise to his pleading. (Doc. 19 at 1.) He contends
Hampton continues to make false representations to the Court
to deny justice to Rapp. He does not, however, specify
exactly which representations are false. He also asserts
Hampton is in possession of documents, witness lists, and
affidavits that purportedly support his claims. Rapp alleges
Hampton's general manager provided Hampton with false
statements about Rapp which apparently led to the
difficulties he experienced at work and the ultimate
discontinuation of his employment. He asserts Hampton is well
aware of its own improper employment policies, the criminal
conduct of its general manager, and the false statements made
about Rapp. At bottom, with respect to Hampton's prior
motion for a more definite statement, he contends
Hampton's disingenuous argument that it needed a more
definite statement of his claims demonstrates its blind
ignorance of the truth and is a form of deception upon the
in his second document Rapp explains his absence from the
October 31, 2017 pretrial conference. He states he had
mechanical problems with his vehicle while traveling to the
conference and, therefore, was unable to get to Missoula,
Motion for Summary Judgment
Rapp requests summary judgment be entered in his favor
against Hampton, his motion does not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P.
56 which sets forth the procedural and substantive
requirements a party must satisfy to obtain summary judgment.
His motion completely fails to cite “to particular
parts of materials in the record” which “show
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) and (c)(1)(A). “[P]ro se litigants
are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v.
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). They
must follow the same applicable rules “that govern
other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d
565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
deficient motion does not demonstrate that he is entitled to
summary judgment. Rapp's ad hominem remarks in his motion
and brief do not establish the existence of any facts of
record which entitle him to relief. “If a moving party
fails to carry its initial burden of production, the
nonmoving party has no obligation to produce anything,
” and the summary judgment motion should be denied.
Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Fritz
Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102-03 (9th
Good Cause and Non-Compliance with the Court's
noted, the Court afforded Rapp an opportunity to explain his
failure to comply with the Court's August 30, 2017 Order,
i.e. his failure to file a preliminary pretrial statement,
and his failure to attend the pretrial conference. In view of
Rapp's pro se status, the Court accepts his explanation
of his motor vehicle mechanical ...