Broussard v. University of California

3 Citing briefs

  1. Sundstrom v. Usps et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment , Motion for Involuntary Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed December 8, 2016

    Broussard, 192 F.3d at 1259; Villone, 2011 WL 4402954, at *7. Even if Mr. Sundstrom could show a disability, he fails to establish the remaining elements of any retaliation claim purportedly based on the DRAC’s actions or inactions in engaging.

  2. Perry v. Kirby Offshore Marine Hawaii, Inc.

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Normand R. Lezy appearing for Defendant Kirby Offshore Marine Hawaii, Inc.

    Filed January 4, 2017

    The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which the nonmoving party has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); see also Broussard v. Univ. of Cal. at Berkeley, 192 F.3d 1252, 1258 (9th Cir. 1999). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of showing the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

  3. Bikila v. Vibram USA Inc.

    Second MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed October 13, 2016

    Summary judgment is required where the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.” Broussard v. Univ. of Cal., 192 F.3d 1252, 1258 (9th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). Further, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”