Albert L. Peia, ProSe

P.O. Box 370434

Reseda, CA91337-0434








  Albert L. Peia,        ) Case No. CV 02-4507-DDP(RNBx)

               Plaintiff )


           -vs-          )

                         ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

  Bernal P. Ojeda,        )OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;

  Rene Lopez DeArenosa,   ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

  and John Does 1 – 15,   )

              Defendants )





   The instant case arises,consistent with an attempt to


obstruct justice andcriminal investigations by the instant


defendants, from theuse of the U.S. mails to perpetrate a


fraud with thedirect consequence of damage to plaintiff’s


property andbusiness. The state law claims are included in


the within action inlight of the fact that said claims are


so related to theRICO claims, deriving from the same


common nucleus ofoperative fact so as to constitute the


same case orcontroversy and hence, the exercise of supple-


mental jurisdictionby the instant court thereof. The


subject clear,incontrovertible crime(s) of perjury/fraud




by defendantDeArenosa also mandate the criminal referral


of same forthwith.Plaintiff’s Statement of Uncontroverted


Facts andConclusions of Law is immediately appended





                        THE LAW


   A motion for summary judgmentprovides a procedure for


terminating withouttrial actions in which “there is no


genuine issue ofmaterial fact and … the moving party is


entitled to judgmentas a matter of law.” F.R.Civ.R 56(c).


Moreover, a motionfor summary judgment “pierces” the


pleadings and putsthe opponent to the test of affirmative-


ly coming forwardwith sufficient evidence for its claims


or defenses tocreate a genuine issue for trial.


Celotex_Corp. v.Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548,


2554(1986); see alsoSchwarzer, Hirsh, & Barrans, The


Analysis andDecision of Summary Judgment Motions, 139FRD


441(1992). Thenonmovant must produce “significantly


probative”evidence to defeat the summary judgment motion.


It is not enough forthe nonmovant to rely on mere allega-


tions or denials ofthe movant’s pleading, United States v.


Shumway, 199F3rd 1093, 1104(9th Cir.1999), or to present


unsworn documents orpapers containing nothing more that





thenonmovant’s speculations. Slowiak v. Land O’Lakes,


Inc., 987 F.2nd1293,1295-1297(7th Cir.1993)(ie., unexplained


contradictoryaffidavits, etc.). Indeed, summary judgment


reinforces the goodfaith pleading requirements of Rule 11


(and sanctions forviolations of same) because meritless


claims and defensescan be easily pierced. F.R.Civ.P.




   In the case sub judice, defendant DeArenosa has merely


interposed (badfaith) general denials (to the averments of


plaintiff’ssworn verified complaint) which do not meet the


requisite burden ofshowing a genuine issue of material


fact. Gasaway v.Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.,26 F3d


957,960(9thCir.1994); United States v. Shumway, supra;


F.R.Civ.P. 56(e).Indeed, sanctions (in addition to


judgment) pursuantto F.R.Civ.P. 56(g) are appropriate as


to defendantDeArenosa owing to his prior inconsistent,


perjuriousdeclaration. See generally, Acrotube, Inc. v.


J.K. Fin’lGroup, Inc., 653 F.Supp. 470(ND GA 1987); Van T.


Junkins &Assoc. v. United States Indus., Inc., 736 F2d 656


(11thCir.1984). Moreover, policy considerations (against


perjury in the legalprocess) mandate the entry of summary


judgment herein,particularly where busy courts and movants




are (through saidbad faith denials predicated on perjury)


drawn into thelengthy process of litigation thereby.





   In sum, for all of the within andforegoing reasons, in


the paramountjudicial interests of truth and justice,


summary judgmentshould enter in favor of plaintiff, and a


criminal referral ofdefendant’s crime should issue







Dated: 8-03-02       Signed:_____________________________

                                Albert L. Peia, Pro Se