re Diagnostic Instrument Group, 283 B.R. 87, 92 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2002). The Court concludes that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact. Consequently, this matter is ripe for summary judgment resolution. B. Procedural Issues Liberty claims it is entitled to summary judgment on procedural grounds because NOB failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida Local Rules. NOB did not file any responsive pleading to Liberty’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment. Liberty argues that, based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2), NOB’s failure to timely file any response is a basis for this Court to grant Liberty’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment. See Kelson v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 778 F.Supp. 521, 528 (S.D.Fla.1991) (<HOLDING>). Further, NOB failed to comply with the time
holding that before granting an unopposed summary judgment motion the court must inquire whether the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate undisputed facts entitling it to summary judgment as a matter of law holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to alteramend judgment where the plaintiff raised the choice of law issue for the first time after the entry of summary judgment holding that the court had an adequate record to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment because the relevant evidence would have been in plaintiffs possession holding that the court had the discretion to grant the summary judgment motion based on the fact that it was unopposed by plaintiff during the time allowed by the rules of civil procedure holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion