Beard v. Banks

12 Citing briefs

  1. Horner et al v. American Airlines Inc et al

    REPLY

    Filed September 15, 2017

    Plaintiffs’ failure to properly address—or address at all—these material facts established in APA’s Cross-Motion deems them admitted and undisputed for the purpose of a summary judgment motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 527 (2006) (since plaintiff failed to challenge the facts in the defendant’s statement of undisputed facts on Case 3:17-cv-00665-D Document 59 Filed 09/15/17 Page 7 of 19 PageID 1492 4 summary judgment, the facts were deemed admitted); Opp. at 1, citing Henson v. Geithner, No.

  2. Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    REPLY BRIEF re Motion for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 28, 2016

    See Statement of Facts, ¶¶ 2-19.5 On that point she offers nothing to defend herself and the key factual issues supporting Wells Fargo’s motion are entirely unopposed/undisputed. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(e) (permitting Courts to “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion,” where “a party fails to properly…address another party’s assertion of fact,” as required in Rule 56(c)); Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 534 (2006) (holding a fact undisputed where plaintiff “did not offer any fact-based or expert-based refutation in the manner the rules provide”); see also Plaintiff’s Declaration In Support of Her Opposition, Dkt. 54-9 (silent on whether she willingly and knowingly manufactured her claims).

  3. Environmental World Watch, Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to violating CWA section 301

    Filed May 11, 2012

    If a non-moving party is unable to make a showing of specific facts to support its claim of a genuine issue requiring a trial, the law requires entry of a judgment in favor of the moving party. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 529 (2006). Rule 56(d) allows for partial summary judgment to adjudicate some of the issues in the case, and authorizes an order specifying the facts that are deemed established for trial.

  4. Wild Equity Institute et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

    REPLY

    Filed April 6, 2012

    However, where – as here – there is no genuine issue of material fact “the law requires entry of judgment” in the movant’s favor. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 524 (2006) (emphasis added) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). In any event, all that has “evolved” here is the City’s changing defense of its ongoing take – first erroneously telling the Court that take of CRLF from pumping operations has been authorized by the FWS, see Pl.

  5. Windsor v. The United States Of America

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document

    Filed June 24, 2011

    THE APPLICABLE STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, the discovery materials, and any affidavits show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 529, 534 (2006) (granting summary judgment in constitutional challenge); Loper v. New York City Police Dep’t, 999 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1993) (affirming summary judgment entered by district court declaring state statute unconstitutional). Case 1:10-cv-08435-BSJ-JCF Document 29 Filed 06/24/11 Page 17 of 51 10 Since it is undisputed that Edie has been injured by virtue of having to pay a $363,000 estate tax, the only issue in this case is whether her injury violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

  6. In Re: Crescent Energy Services, Llc

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 12, 2016

    SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary judgment shall be granted if the record and evidence presented show there is no genuine issue related to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006). The moving party must demonstrate by competent evidence that no issue of material fact exists.

  7. In Re: Crescent Energy Services, Llc

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed August 16, 2016

    SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary judgment shall be granted if the record and evidence presented show there is no genuine issue related to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006). The moving party must demonstrate by competent evidence that no issue of material fact exists.

  8. Velasquez v. Glaser

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed May 19, 2016

    The non- Case 1:15-cv-24224-KMW Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2016 Page 3 of 19 4 BlueRock Legal, P.A. • 10800 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 410, Miami, Florida 33161 moving party must then provide sufficient evidence showing that she can prevail on the merits. See Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530 (2006). “The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

  9. USA v. Zen Magnets, LLC et al

    RESPONSE to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed July 8, 2015

    All doubts are resolved against the moving party, all evidence will be construed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences will be drawn in the non-movant’s favor. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530-531 (2006); Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 550-555 (1999). In the case at bar, the Government cannot meet its burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists.

  10. SALAHI et al v. BUSH et al

    MOTION for Order to Show Cause

    Filed June 10, 2015

    “Turner requires prison authorities to show more than a formalistic logical connection between a regulation and a penological objective.” Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 535 (2006). Yet, in approximately October 2014, the Defense Department imposed arbitrary new restrictions on Mr. Slahi’s detention conditions by depriving him without notice or explanation of the only comforts he has possessed over the course of his continuing ordeal.