In Hinterberger v. City of Indianapolis, No. 19-3365 (7th Cir. July 16, 2020), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court?s granting of the defendant City?s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant improperly withheld funds for plaintiff?s mixed-use commercial and residential construction project. In that case, the plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 56-1, which required a party opposing a summary judgment motion to provide a statement identifying determinative facts and factual disputes. The statement submitted by the plaintiff misrepresented evidence, contained inaccurate and misleading citations to record and presented improper arguments.
The Court of Appeals found that the District Court could properly strike the entire statement rather than striking only improper portions of statement since the trial judge was not required to sift through improper denials and legal argument in search of genuinely disputed facts that would defeat the pending summary judgment motion. As such, once the statement was stricken, plaintiff?s claim lacked any evidentiary support and the District Court could properly grant the summary judgment motion. As Judge Scudder succinctly stated: “Courts expect parties to know and follow local rules of practice. Failing to do so can prove fatal.”