Barker v. Norman

4 Citing briefs

  1. In Re: the Complaint and Petition of the United States of America in a Cause for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability with Respect to Dhs-Cbp Vessel M382901 (M901) re the Collision with an Unnamed Pan

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Dismissal of Damage Claims of Claimants "The Estate of Decedent Graciela Lopez Franco, etc."

    Filed February 21, 2017

    4 Case No.: 3:15-cv-02626-JM-RBB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 defense, or a particular element of a claim or defense. See Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1123 (5th Cir.1981); Servicios Especiales Al Comercio Exterior v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 791 F.Supp.2d 626, 631–32 (E.D.Wis.2011); DiSandro v. Makahuena Corp., 588 F.Supp. 889, 892 (D.Haw.1984); 11 Moore’s Fed. Practice— Civil § 56.122[2] (3d ed.2011).

  2. Takiguchi et al v. Mri International, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Against Paul Suzuki

    Filed November 1, 2016

    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (“If on motion under this rule judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the relief asked and a trial is necessary, the court . . . shall thereupon make an order specifying the facts that appear without substantial controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy, and directing; such further proceedings in the action as are just...”). “In cases that involve complicated fact patterns and multiple causes of action, summary judgment may be . . . proper as to some causes of action but not as to others, or as to some issues but not as to others, or as to some parties but not as to others . . . .” Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1123 (5th Cir. 1981). V. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR FEDERAL SECURITIES FRAUD CLAIMS AGAINST PAUL SUZUKI A. Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act prohibits the use or employment “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security” of “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”

  3. Asis Internet Services v. Vistaprint USA, Incorporated et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication

    Filed March 9, 2010

    In cases that involve complicated fact patterns and multiple causes of action, summary judgment may be granted as to some causes of action but not as to others or as to some issues but not as to others, and as to some parties but not as to others … a careful and meticulous analysis first by the parties, but ultimately by the district court will aid significantly in preventing the waste of private and judicial resources and time. Case4:08-cv-05261-SBA Document72 Filed03/09/10 Page10 of 17 NOTICE & Motion For Summary Judgment 10 C-08-5261 SBA or Summary Adjudication of Issues & MP&A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107 at 1123 (5th Cir., 1981). Therefore, in complicated cases, such as this matter, where the case is not fully adjudicated on the facts, the Court should determine what facts are established to reduce time at trial and prevent the waste of judicial resources.

  4. Samuel et al v. Signal International L.L.C. et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed October 17, 2014

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.” See also Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1123 (5th Cir. 1981) (partial summary judgment promotes “a careful and meticulous analysis, first by the parties, but ultimately by the district court [which] will aid significantly in preventing the waste of private and judicial resources and time.”).