Defendant's Attorney: No appearance

Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma civil litigation lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on fraud theories.

Plaintiff claimed that Defendant solicited a loan from Plaintiff on February 8, 2020
in the amount of $10,000.

Plaintiff further claimed that McCart made a series of oral and written promises and representations about McCart's ability to grow marijuana and the expected profits and success of the grow operation.

Plaintiffs loaned Defendants approximately $75,000.

Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant McCart made false statements and representations.

Outcome: 10-31-2023 CTFREE


CANTRELL, DAMAN

ORDER ENTERED.
THE COURT HAS REVIEWED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT SPENCER MCCART, FILED OCT. 9, 2023. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE OR OBJECTION FILED TO THIS MOTION. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THE BRIEF AND THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS SUBMITTED, INCLUDING PLEADINGS, DEPOSITIONS EXCERPTS, AFFIDAVITS AND OTHER MATERIALS. "IN ORDER FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION TO BE APPROPRIATE THERE NOT ONLY MUST BE NO DISPUTE AS TO MATERIAL FACTS, BUT ALL REASONABLE INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THOSE FACTS MUST BE IN ONE PARTY'S FAVOR AND SHOW THAT THE PARTY IS ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW." DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO. V. RICE 2020 OK CIV APP 21. THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS MUST BE VIEWED IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PARTY OPPOSING SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ID. MOREOVER, ANY RULING ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST BE MADE ON THE RECORD THE PARTIES HAVE ACTUALLY MADE AND NOT UPON ONE WHICH IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE. ID. HOWEVER, "MERE ALLEGATIONS IN A PLEADING THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL WILL NOT DEFEAT AN OTHERWISE VALID MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT." ID.

THE GRANTING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE MERITS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION IS AN ADJUDICATION ON THE MERITS EVEN WHEN NO RESPONSE IS MADE TO THE MOTION. FRIEDMAN V. CRAIG, 21010 OK CIV APP 83, 241 P.3D 681. BASED ON THIS EVALUATION, THE COURT FINDS NO SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT. FLEETWOOD V. CHEVRONN U.S.A. PROD. CO., 2010 OK CIV APP 63, 239 P.3D 960. ADDITIONALLY, THE MOVING PARTY HAS ADDRESSED ALL MATERIAL FACTS AND SUBMITTED SUPPORTIVE EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL. NIDER V. REPUBLIC PARKING, 169 P.3D 738 (OKLA. CIV. APP. 2007), SPIRGES V. CIRCLE K STORES, 1987 OK CIV APP 45, 743 P.3D 682, (RULE 13, DISTRICT COURT RULES). THIS COURT MAY GRANT SUMMERY JUDGMENT WITHOUT A HEARING (NIDER). ALL MATERIAL FACTS SET FORTH IN THE STATEMENT OF THE MOVING PARTY WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE ARE DEEMED ADMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNLESS SPECIFICALLY CONTROVERTED BY THE STATEMENT OF THE ADVERSE PART WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. TUCKER V. LAM, 2013, OK CIV APP 99, 313 P.3D 1011.

THEREFORE, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS TO SUBMIT JOURNAL ENTRY.

((CLERK FILED ORIGINAL AND MAILED COPIES TO AUSTIN CANFIELD & SPENCER MCCART.))

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: