Hinterberger v. City of Indianapolis

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-City’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant improperly withheld funds for plaintiff’s mixed-use commercial and residential construction project, where plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 56-1, which required party opposing summary judgment to provide statement identifying determinative facts and factual disputes. Statement submitted by plaintiff misrepresented evidence, contained inaccurate and misleading citations to record and presented improper arguments. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly strike entire statement rather than striking only improper portions of statement, since Dist. Ct. is not required to sift through improper denials and legal argument in search of genuinely disputed facts that would defeat summary judgment motion. As such, once statement was stricken, plaintiff’s claim lacked any evidentiary support, such that Dist. Ct. could properly grant summary judgment motion.