Houston Casualty Company v. Rup
1:16-cv-00294
D. Vt.Aug 3, 2017Background
- Rup, while IT Manager at Agri‑Mark, ordered extra equipment, approved payment, and sold the equipment for personal profit. Agri‑Mark suffered loss.
- Agri‑Mark assigned its rights to Houston Casualty Company, which paid Agri‑Mark $1,538,425 and seeks recovery as assignee/subrogee.
- Rup pled guilty in federal court to one count of wire fraud arising from the scheme and was ordered to pay restitution: $1,550,925 total (including $1,538,425 to Houston Casualty); $15,490 has been paid, leaving $1,522,935 outstanding.
- Houston Casualty moved for summary judgment for the outstanding $1,522,935; Rup, proceeding pro se and incarcerated, did not oppose or file a response.
- The court treated Plaintiff’s factual statements as admitted under Rule 56(e), considered collateral estoppel from Rup’s criminal conviction, and evaluated whether summary judgment was appropriate despite the motion being unopposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rup is civilly liable for the money awarded as restitution in his criminal case | Criminal conviction establishes Rup’s liability; Houston seeks entry of civil judgment for outstanding restitution assigned to it | Rup did not respond; no contrary factual or legal challenge presented | Court: Rup is collaterally estopped by his guilty plea/conviction; summary judgment entered for $1,522,935 |
| Whether summary judgment is proper despite the motion being unopposed and Rup being pro se | Plaintiff’s undisputed facts and criminal judgment satisfy Rule 56 and support judgment | Rup’s pro se status requires solicitude, but he offered no evidence or rebuttal | Court: Applied special solicitude but still required to verify record; Plaintiff’s submissions suffice, so summary judgment granted |
| Whether collateral estoppel applies based on the criminal conviction | Conviction on fraud-related scheme to defraud Agri‑Mark resolves identical issues in the civil case | Defense could raise lack of full and fair opportunity or non-identical issues, but did not | Court: Elements for collateral estoppel satisfied; conviction precludes relitigation of Rup’s liability |
| Whether any genuine issue of material fact remains | Plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts and the criminal judgment eliminate material factual disputes | No opposing evidence submitted to create a triable issue | Court: No genuine issue remains; judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (standard for drawing inferences at summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (nonmoving party must present evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (court's role at summary judgment and standard for genuine issue)
- Jackson v. Fed. Express, 766 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2014) (unopposed summary judgment motions cannot be automatically granted; court must verify the moving papers)
- United States v. Podell, 572 F.2d 31 (2d Cir. 1978) (criminal conviction can have preclusive effect in subsequent civil proceedings)
- Gelb v. Royal Globe Ins. Co., 798 F.2d 38 (2d Cir. 1986) (elements and application of collateral estoppel from a criminal conviction)
- Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2004) (district court must independently verify that the movant’s submissions support summary judgment, even if unopposed)