Albert L. Peia, ProSe

P.O. Box 370434

Reseda, CA91337-0434

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

--------------------------

)

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 )

--------------------------

FACTS

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

hereto.

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(9^th Cir.1999), or to present

unsworn documents orpapers containing nothing more that

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

Inc., 987 F.2^nd1293,1295-1297(7^th 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.

56,11.

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(9^thCir.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

(11^thCir.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.

CONCLUSION

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

forthwith.

Dated: 8-03-02 Signed:_____________________________

Albert L. Peia, Pro Se