International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's

17 Citing briefs

  1. Soto et al v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Continuance of Docket Date of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed July 30, 2010

    With over five months of discovery remaining in the above-captioned matter, this Court should grant Defendants’ request for a continuance of response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as a matter of course under Fifth Circuit law. See Fisher v. Greater Houston Convention & Visitors Bureau, 200 Fed. App’x 293, 294 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that district court abused discretion in denying Rule 56(f) motion where nonmovant had been unable, despite appropriate request, to take depositions); International Shortstop, 939 F.2d at 1267 (“Where the party opposing the summary judgment informs the court that its diligent efforts to obtain evidence have been unsuccessful, ‘a continuance of a motion for summary judgment for purposes of discovery should be granted almost as a matter of course.’”) (citations omitted); see Case 2:10-cv-00066 Document 42 Filed in TXSD on 07/30/10 Page 4 of 9 HOU02:1205255.1 5 also Xerox Corp., 888 F. 2d at 354, 354 n.7 (holding that “it was an abuse of [] discretion for the trial judge not to hold that Xerox lacked both adequate time for discovery and adequate discovery” where only two defendants had responded to discovery requests, and “the conflicting schedules of counsel” had prevented Xerox from fully reviewing even those responses).

  2. Legg v. Voice Media Group, Inc.

    RESPONSE in Opposition re Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed April 7, 2014

    Simply put, Snyder's proposed testimony—which is plainly not "based on sufficient facts or data," FED. R. EVID. 702(b)—is "entirely unreliable," see Dominguez v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2014 WL 1096051, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2014) (granting summary judgment for defendant and concluding that no evidence offered by the plaintiff—including Snyder's declaration—disputed Yahoo!'s assertion that "its service could not randomly or sequentially generate telephone numbers, but only sent messages to a user that had authorized them and only when that user received an email"). In sum, Legg—who bears the burden of proof of establishing that an ATDS was used— has wholly failed to do so, and Legg's motion for summary judgment therefore fails. See Int'l Shortstop, 939 F.2d at 1265 ("[B]ecause the moving party has the burden of proof . . . , the nonmoving party may also defeat the motion by showing that the moving party's evidence is so sheer that it may not persuade the reasonable fact finder to return a verdict in favor of the moving party."). But even if Plaintiff had met his burden, and even if the burden had therefore shifted to 2 Even Legg appears to have recognized that the documents shed little light about the kind of equipment used.

  3. Whitney Information, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al

    MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 115 MOTION for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56

    Filed June 26, 2007

    “Additionally, non-movant must diligently pursue relevant discovery-the trial court need not aid non-movants who have occasioned their own predicaments through sloth.” Wichita Falls Office Associates, 978 F.2d 915, 919; International Shortstop, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1267. This Motion acts as Plaintiff’s request for extended discovery and notice that further discovery is sought.

  4. Champlin v. Manpower Inc.

    RESPONSE to 76 MOTION to Dismiss and MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 20, 2019

    This will be done through depositions of one or more of the individuals hired for the job and a corporate representative of Experis.38 Champlin has stated what discovery he needs, why he needs it, and how the discovery will defeat the motion. See Int’l Shortstop Inc. v. Rally’s Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir. 1991). Where the party opposing a dispositive motion informs the court it has been diligent in seeking discovery, a continuance should generally be granted.

  5. Coe v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc

    Brief/Memorandum in Support

    Filed December 5, 2016

    Thomas v. Napolitano, 449 F. App'x 373, 374 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Where ‘the moving party’s evidence is so sheer that it may not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the moving party’ summary judgment [must] be defeated.”) (citing International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1265 (5th Cir. 1991)). In the alternative, if the Court is not inclined to decide Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the legal and procedural grounds presented herein, SPS requests a continuance of summary judgment proceedings, and an opportunity, after an adequate time for discovery has passed, to present its factual defenses through affidavit(s) and authenticated documents.

  6. Kozak et al v. Chabad-Lubavitch Inc. et al

    OPPOSITION

    Filed July 25, 2014

    Hosp., 188 Cal.App.4th 1, 36 (2010) (inquiry into state of mind poses a question of fact); Cummings v. Fire Ins. Exch., 202 Cal.App.3d 1407, 1417 (1988) (knowledge of falsity "is a question of fact."); Int'l Shortstop Inc. v. Rally's Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1265 (5th Cir. 1991) (discussing scienter element in Federal False Claims Act: "we have emphasized repeatedly that cases which turn on the moving party's state of mind are not well-suited for summary judgment"). As such, “there is a genuine issue of material fact whether [Chabad] acted either knowingly, in deliberate ignorance of the truth, or in reckless disregard of the truth” when submitting grant funds requests which all relate to a question of fact and are not “well-suited” for summary judgment.

  7. Institute for Policy Studies v. United States Central Intelligence Agency

    MOTION to Stay Summary Judgment Briefing and Permit Discovery

    Filed September 13, 2007

    56(f) should be freely granted if the party seeking the motion demonstrates by affidavit (or declaration) that there are facts within the other party’s exclusive control that are necessary for responding to the material facts presented in a pending motion for Summary Judgment. International Shortstop, 939 F.2d at 1267. In FOIA actions, discovery is usually limited to the adequacy of the agency's search and similar matters.

  8. Champlin v. Manpower Inc.

    RESPONSE to 61 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 19, 2019

    This will be done through depositions of one or more of the individuals hired for the job and a corporate representative of Quantlab. Champlin has stated what discovery he needs, why he needs it, and how the discovery will defeat the motion. See Int’l Shortstop Inc. v. Rally’s Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir. 1991). Where the party opposing a dispositive motion informs the court it has been diligent in seeking discovery, a continuance should generally be granted.

  9. Crochet v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 27, 2018

    ”12 In light of the above and foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court deny defendants’ motion. Respectfully submitted, TAGGART MORTON, L.L.C. s/ Perry R. Staub, Jr._____ Perry R. Staub, Jr. (Bar Roll No. 12414) 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2100 New Orleans, Louisiana 70163-2100 Telephone: (504) 599-8500 Facsimile: (504) 599-8501 pstaub@taggartmorton.com -and- THE JAVIER LAW FIRM, L.L.C. s/ Roger A. Javier _______ Roger A. Javier (Bar Roll No. 26056) 1340 Poydras Street, Suite 2100 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone: (504) 599-8570 Facsimile: (504) 599-8579 rogerj@javierlawfirm.com COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF RAYMOND CROCHET 12 International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 63 (5th Cir. 1991); Fruge, 2017 WL 1807610, at *8. Case 3:16-cv-00036-SDD-EWD Document 91 02/27/18 Page 5 of 6 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 27, 2018, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing pleading and attachments with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

  10. Blaze v. McMoRan Oil & Gas L L C et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 19, 2017

    . Eagle, however, fails to explain why it could not procure this evidence from its own company men 6 Citing International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1266-67 (5th Cir.1991), and Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 901 F.2d 1281, 1286 (5th Cir.1990). Case 6:16-cv-01552-PJH Document 110 Filed 12/19/17 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 877 8 (See Section “B,” supra, uncalled witness rule).