Gannon International v. Walter Blocker, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592

Gannon sued Blocker, former Gannon employee, and several corporate defendants over a $415,000 wire transfer from Gannon Hong Kong to Blocker’s wife, and a $40,000 transfer to Gannon’s former CFO for alleged improper purposes.
Blocker moved for partial summary judgment with evidence explaining the transfers; Gannon offered no responsive evidence at the time.
The district court granted Blocker’s motion, found no genuine issue of material fact, and dismissed related claims (fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion) to the extent based on the $415,000 transfer.
The court allowed other claims to proceed only if premised on the $40,000 transfer.
Gannon later sought to alter or amend, submitted new exhibits, and appealed after the district court entered final judgment.
The core issue on appeal is whether summary judgment was proper and whether the appellate jurisdiction concerns affected the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blocker met Rule 56 initial burden	Gannon contends Blocker’s evidence fails	Blocker showed a lack of genuine issues of material fact	Yes, Blocker met burden and summary judgment was proper
Whether the district court properly evaluated admissibility and weight of evidence	Gannon argues Hung's hearsay and Ly’s exhibits create a dispute	Court correctly admitted evidence and treated exhibits as admissible at summary judgment	Yes, evidence unrebutted and properly considered
Whether the appellate jurisdiction was proper given the vol. dismissal context	Gannon challenged the final judgment	Dismissal not used to evade jurisdiction, jurisdiction remained	Jurisdiction proper; merits addressed

McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679 F.3d 698 (8th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc; summary judgment framework)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (S. Ct. 2007) (conduct on summary judgment; credibility questions resisted)