WPC dgMXFr)(Y+P3>!1lC|bmpM^m;$OH֥'eOko̦=i\Wg43 0@jO8F T"-a#\?6)?%3m X}WZζO<˲&Ys]=>ug!4:+iIǐLu8\Waf p2ibQBQʥI?=!YϱcڳH:RM DpUg uf\?PsKvA 58Giɞw+%e=5O y,-("Pj I+ WE;ǩ&y#VRR< 3T7; .}y2&A뷄=sM*CUQ1*3} jՍ4T3܆`׳ݥWIS.=h?Zͬ-#E^.ƌomb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   l 2 0DNFUNJE#b 0 B 0 D3y D- 0K AS$w 0= 0D A%HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0n+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularQ+ PK C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU  R[$      1     _Whilesome,butapparentlynotall,ofthesevendorsarementionedinthecomplaint,theyarenotpartiesto  thisaction.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   < R[$      2     _Theplaintiffassertsvariouscommonlawclaims,includingcivilconspiracy,unjustenrichment/restitution,  moneyhadandreceived,andvoluntarypayment/mistakeoffact.(I Z6Times New Roman Regular  R[$      3     _TheplaintiffarguesthatRule56.03doesnotmandatethatadditionalfactsbesetforthinhisresponsebecause  theRuleprovidesthat thenon_movant_sresponsemaycontainaconcisestatementofanyadditionalfactsthatthenon t _movant_Ԁcontendsarematerial.(Emphasisadded).Wedisagreewiththeplaintiffsinterpretationthattheinclusionof 8 anyadditionalmaterialfactsrelieduponbytheplaintiffisoptional.WereadRule56.03asacknowledgingthatthe L _nonmovant_sdefensiveposturemaybebywayofdemonstratingthatthe_movant_sfactsarenotundisputedorthatthere  are additionalfactsthatreflectagenuineissueofmaterialfact. - -(|G2[$ !.8Td XXd8         0  , d(|3h$ !.8Td XXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3h$ !.8Td XXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8V\d d8     _  8<\XXdd 8  @ PINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#P #Ԉ &   August27,2001Session L XR]X #XXR]#PHILIPOWENS,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarly J situatedv.BRISTOLMOTORSPEEDWAY,INC.XR]X   ^ @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforSullivanCounty  ^ @@No.C10815(L)RichardE.Ladd,Judge  J FILEDDECEMBER19,2001 "  @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200002667_COA_ԄR3CV   AV) ` dE<` A      Inthisputativeclassactionsuit,theplaintiff,PhilipOwens,allegesthatthedefendant,BristolMotor  Speedway,Inc.( BristolSpeedway),engagedinaconspiracytofixthepricesofsouvenirssoldat x itsracetrack.ThetrialcourtdeniedcertificationoftheallegedclassandgrantedBristolSpeedways d motionforsummaryjudgmentastotheplaintiffsindividualclaims.Weaffirm. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt (x Affirmed;CaseRemanded  d   #XR]#XR]X.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM._Goddard_, < _P.J._,andD.Michael_Swiney_,J.,joined. ( GordonBall,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,PhilipOwens,onbehalfofhimselfandall  otherssimilarlysituated.  KurtJ._Pomrenke_ԀandTimothyW.Hudson,Bristol,Virginia,andFredT._Lowrence_ԀandMichael t  G.Adams,Charlotte,NorthCarolina,fortheappellee,BristolSpeedway,Inc. x  `!   OPINION #XXR]#XR]X 8#" #XXR] #XR]X    I. %` $ }   OnFebruary19,1999,theplaintifffiledthisactionallegingthatthedefendant,Bristol &8"&  Speedway,engagedinapricefixingconspiracywithvendors  #  1      ׀whosoldsouvenirsatthedefendants '$#' racetrackinviolationofthesocalledTradePracticesAct,_T.C.A._Ԁ4725101,etseq.;the  TennesseeConsumerProtectionAct,_T.C.A._Ԁ4718101,etseq.;andthecommonlaw. #  2      ׀     Theplaintiffsoughtclassactioncertification.Theproposedclasswasdefinedas [_a]ll_Ԁrepeat t ticketholdersofNASCARsanctionedWinstonCupand/orBuschRacesheldat[BristolSpeedway] ` betweenthetimeJanuary1,1991andJanuary1,1997andwhopurchasedmerchandiseorsouvenirs L  fromvendorsat[thedefendantsracetrack]thatweresubjectedtominimumpricefixingbythe 8  Defendant.Thetrialcourtdeniedtheplaintiffsmotiontocertifytheproposedclass.Theaction $ t thenproceeded,butonlyastotheplaintiffsindividualclaims.  `   OnJuly28,2000,BristolSpeedwayfiledamotionforsummaryjudgment,arguing,inter  8  alia,thattherewasnoevidenceitengagedinapricefixingconspiracyorthattheplaintiffpurchased $  souvenirsfromavendorparticipatingintheallegedconspiracy.Itfurtherassertedthattheplaintiffs   claimswerebarredbytheapplicablestatutesoflimitations.Insupportofitsmotion,thedefendant   filedastatementof undisputedmaterialfactspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03,alongwiththe   affidavitsanddepositionscitedinthestatement.ThemotionwassetforargumentonAugust31,   2000. p   OnAugust29,2000,twodaysbeforethesummaryjudgmenthearing,theplaintifffiledthe H affidavitsoftwovendors,RockyWagnerandStevenR._Crutchfield_.ItwasnotuntilAugust30, 4 2000,thattheplaintifffiledaresponsetothestatementofmaterialfactssubmittedbyBristol  p Speedway.Theplaintiffsresponsecontainssomecitationstothepreviouslyfiledaffidavits,aswell  \ astodepositionsthataccompaniedtheplaintiffsresponse.Theplaintiffalsofiledamemorandum H oflaw,whichcontainsastatementofallofthefactsallegedbytheplaintifftobeindispute, 4 includingsomefactsthatareintherecordbutarenotreferredtointheplaintiffsresponsetothe   defendantsRule56.03statement.     Atthehearingbelow,thetrialcourtdeclaredthatitwouldnotconsideranyfactsreliedupon  bytheplaintiffthatwerenotcitedintheplaintiffsresponsetothedefendantsstatementofmaterial  facts.BasedupontheRule56.03statementsfiledbythepartiesandtheportionsoftherecordcited l therein,thetrialcourtfoundthattherewasagenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhetherBristol X  Speedwayengagedinapricefixingconspiracy;nevertheless,itgrantedthedefendantssummary D! judgmentmotion,findingthattherewasnoevidencethattheplaintiffpurchasedasouvenirata 0"   fixedpricefromanallegedmemberoftheconspiracy.Moreover,thetrialcourtfoundthatthe #l! plaintiffsclaimswerebarredbytheapplicablestatutesoflimitations. $X"   Theplaintiffappeals,raisingthreeissues: %0!$   &"% _8  8`   1.DidthetrialcourterrbyapplyingTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03inan   unjustifiablymechanisticfashion,therebyexcludingevidence  properlysubmittedbytheplaintiff?` x` x  8  8`   2.Didthetrialcourterrinholdingthattheplaintiffsclaimsare ` barredbytheapplicablestatutesoflimitations?L ` x` x 8  8`   3.Didthetrialcourterrinrefusingtocertifytherequestedclassin $ t thiscase? `` x` x   II.  8     `   Ourstandardofreviewofagrantofsummaryjudgmentiswell-settled.Ourinquiryinvolves   onlyaquestionoflaw,withnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtsdecision. Robinson   v.Omer, 952S.W.2d423,426(Tenn.1997); Byrdv.Hall, 847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.1993).The   movingpartyhastheinitialburdenofproducingcompetent,materialevidencereflectingthatthere   arenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandthatitisentitledtosummaryjudgmentasamatteroflaw. p See Byrd, 847S.W.2dat211.Inevaluatingtheevidenceinthesummaryjudgmentcontext,wemust \ viewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,andwemustdrawall H reasonableinferencesinfavorofthatparty. Id. at210.Summaryjudgmentisappropriateonlywhen 4 therearenogenuineissuesofmaterialfactandwhentheundisputedmaterialfactsentitlethemoving  p partytoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04; Byrd, 847S.W.2dat211.  \   III. 4 2$  TheplaintiffarguesthatthetrialcourterredinapplyingTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03inan    unjustifiablymechanisticfashionwhenitrefusedtoconsiderevidencecontainedinthediscovery  materialsfiledbytheplaintiffbutnotreferredtoinhisRule56.03responsetothedefendants  statementofmaterialfacts.Theplaintiffinsiststhat hecouldhavecreatedagenuinequestionof  materialfact...hadtheTrialJudgenotexcludedlargeportionsofhisevidence.Theplaintiff l contendsthatthetrialcourtsactionwasespeciallyunwarrantedinlightofthefactthatthe X  memorandumoflawfiledalongwithhisresponsecontainsaconcisestatementofallofthefacts D! relieduponbytheplaintiff,alongwithappropriatecitationstotherecord.Attheveryleast,the 0"  plaintiffcontends,heshouldhavebeengrantedacontinuancetoallowhimtime toconfigurehis #l! documentsintotheCourtspreferredformat. $X"   Rule56.03requiresthepartyseekingsummaryjudgmenttoprovide aseparateconcise %0!$ statementofthematerialfactsastowhichthemovingpartycontendsthereisnogenuineissuefor &"% trial.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.Eachfactmustbesetforthinaseparate,numberedparagraphalong '#& withaspecificcitationtotherecord. Id. Thenonmovingpartymustfilearesponsetoeachfactset (#' forthbythemovingpartyandeither(1)agreethatthefactisundisputed;(2)agreethatthefactis )$( undisputedforthepurposesofthemotion;or(3)demonstratewithaspecificcitationtotherecord |*%) thatthefactisdisputed. Id. Rule56.03furtherprovides h+&* Ї8  8`   thenonmovantsresponsemaycontainaconcisestatementofany  additionalfactsthatthenonmovantcontendsarematerialandasto  whichthenonmovantcontendsthereexistsagenuineissuetobe  tried.Eachsuchdisputedfactshallbesetforthinaseparate, t numberedparagraphwithspecificcitationstotherecordsupporting ` thecontentionthatsuchfactisindispute.L ` x` x  Id. Thepurposeoftheserequirementsisto assisttheCourtinfocusingonthecrucialportionsof $ t therecordindeterminingwhetherthereisagenuineissuerequiringatrialonthemerits.See  ` AdvisoryCommitteeCommenttoTenn.R.Civ.P.56.03.  L    ThisCourthasrecognizedthatanonmovingpartysfailuretocomplywithRule56.03may $  resultinthetrialcourtsrefusaltoconsiderthefactualcontentionsofthenonmovingpartyeven   thoughthosefactscouldbeascertainedfromtherecord.See Simmonsv.Harris, C/ANo.M2000   00227COAR3CV,2000WL1586451,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.W.S.,filedOctober25,2000),perm.   app.deniedApril16,2001.AstheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuithasnoted,   thestatementsofmaterialfactsfiledbythepartiesonamotionforsummaryjudgment p 8  8`   arenotmerelysuperfluousabstractsoftheevidence.Rather,theyare H intendedtoalertthecourttopreciselywhatfactualquestionsarein 4 disputeandpointthecourttothespecificevidenceintherecordthat  p supportsapartyspositiononeachofthesequestions.Theyare,in  \ short,roadmaps,andwithoutthemthecourtshouldnothaveto H proceedfurther,regardlessofhowreadilyitmightbeabletodistill 4 therelevantinformationfromtherecordonitsown. ` x` x  Waldridgev.AmericanHoechstCorp., 24F.3d918,923(7thCir.1994).Ofcourse,atrialcourt,  actingwithinitsdiscretion,maywaivetherequirementsoftheruleinanappropriatesituation,see   Butlerv.DiversifiedEnergy,Inc., C/ANo.03A019804CV00146,1999WL76102,at*3(Tenn.  Ct.App.E.S.,filedJanuary28,1999);however,consideringthediscretionarynatureofthedecision l beforeus,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourtintheinstantcaseerredwhenitrefusedtowaivethe X  strictrequirementsoftherule,especiallyinlightofthefactthattheplaintiffsresponsetothe D! defendantsstatementofmaterialfactsandthememorandumoflawinsupportthereofwerenotfiled 0"  untilthedaybeforethehearingandcouldhavebeendisregardedonthatbasisalone.SeeTenn.R. #l! Civ.P.56.03(requiringnonmovingpartytofileresponsenolaterthanfivedaysbeforethesummary $X" judgmenthearing) . $D #   Furthermore,wecannotsaythatthetrialcourterredindenyingtheplaintiffsmotionfora &"% continuance. Anappellatecourtcannotinterferewiththetrialcourtsdecisionunlesssuchdecision '#& constitutesanabuseofdiscretionandcausesprejudicetothepartyseekingthestayorcontinuance. (#'  Sanjinesv.OrtweinandAssocs.,P.C., 984S.W.2d907,909(Tenn.1998).Theinstantcaseisnot )$( merelyaquestionofmaterialsnotbeingpresentedinthetrialcourts preferredformat,as |*%) suggestedbytheplaintiff.ItisRule56.03thatsetsforththerequiredformat.Theplaintifffailed h+&* tocomplywiththatrulewhenhedidnotsetforthinhisresponseallofthefactsthathecontendsare  indispute. #  3      ׀Thetrialcourtactedwithinitsdiscretioninchoosingtostrictlyenforcethose  requirements.Wecannotsaythatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingtheplaintiffa  continuancetobringhisfilingsincompliancewithRule56.03. t   Uponreviewingthestatementsofmaterialfactssubmittedbytheparties,andtheportions L  oftherecordcitedtherein,weagreewiththetrialcourtthatthereisnoevidencethattheplaintiff 8  purchasedanysouvenirsata fixedpricefromamemberoftheallegedpricefixingconspiracy. $ t Theundisputedfactsdemonstratethattheplaintiffcannotidentifyanyofthevendorsfromwhom  ` hepurchasedsouvenirs.Furthermore,theplaintiffadmittedthathedoesnotknowwhetherhe  L  boughtanysouvenirsfromanyvendorsthatparticipatedintheallegedpricefixingconspiracy.  8  Becausetheplaintiffsowntestimonyconclusivelydemonstratesthathecannotprovehewasa $  victimoftheallegedconspiracy,weaffirmthetrialcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentastohis   individualclaims.     Becausewehavedeterminedthatthereisnoevidencethattheplaintiffpurchasedsouvenirs   ata fixedpricefromamemberoftheallegedpricefixingconspiracy,wedonotfinditnecessary p toaddresswhethertheplaintiffsclaimsarebarredbytheapplicablestatutesoflimitations. \ Moreover,becausetheplaintiffcannotmakeouthisindividualclaims,theissueofwhetherheis H otherwiseanappropriateclassrepresentativeisamootquestion.Hecannotrepresentaclassof 4 whichheisnotamember.See,e.g., FirstAm.NatlBankv.Hunter, 581S.W.2d655,657(Tenn.  p Ct.App.1978)(findingthatpartycouldnotrepresentaclassbaseduponthedefenseofusury  \ becausehisusuryclaimhadbeendisallowed);seealsoTenn.R.Civ.P.23.01(requiringclass H representativetohave claimsordefenses...typicaloftheclaimsordefensesoftheclass). 4   IV.   F  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforcollectionofcosts  assessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,Philip  Owens. l    `     h     _______________________________ 0"     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE