Doff v. Brunswick Corp.

4 Citing briefs

  1. Secretary of Labor v. Jasmine Hall Care Homes Inc. et al

    REPLY to RESPONSE to MOTION re MOTION for Partial SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

    Filed May 29, 2007

    As noted by the Ninth Circuit in Doff v. Brunswick Corp., 372 F.2d 801, 10 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1432 (9th Cir.1966) ; cert. denied Doff v. Brunswick Corp., 389 U.S. 820, 88 S.Ct. 39, 19 L.Ed.2d 71 (1967): Where, on the basis of the materials presented by his affidavits, the moving party, if at trial, would be entitled to a directed verdict unless contradicted, it rests upon the opposing party at least to specify some evidence to show that such contradiction is possible. (internal citations omitted.)

  2. Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al

    OPPOSITION to MOTION for Summary Judgment[457], MOTION for Summary Judgment[458], MOTION for Summary Judgment[456] PERFECT 10'S RESPONSE TO GOOGLE, INC.'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF SEAN CHUMURA, BENNETT MCPHATTER AND DAVID OCONNOR RE: GOOGLES MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed October 12, 2009

    See also Scharf v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 597 F.2d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.1979) (“courts generally are much more lenient with the affidavits of a party opposing a summary judgment motion.”); Doff v. Brunswick Corp., 372 F.2d 801, 804 (9th Cir.1966) (referring to the “rule of liberal construction of a counter affiant’s papers”), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 820, 88 S.Ct. 39 (1967).

  3. Mcdonald v. Experian Llc et al

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed August 1, 2016

    “More is required from [a declarant] than mere hearsay and legal conclusion.” Doff v. Brunswick Corp., 372 F.2d 801, 804 (9th Cir. 1966) (citation omitted). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 602, a witness must have personal knowledge.

  4. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc et al

    MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 201 Motion to Strike ; granting 216 Motion to Supplement; granting in part and denying in part 219 Motion for Order to Show Cause; granting 222 Motion to Seal Document. Signed

    Filed March 13, 2013

    Thus, the SEC was entitled to summary judgment only if it demonstrated that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to [defendant’s] affirmative defense or that, viewing the evidence and the inferences which could be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to [defendant], the SEC was clearly entitled to prevail as a matter of law.”) (citing Doff v. Brunswick Corp., 372 F.2d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). The Commission has not satisfied such a burden.