Keenan v. Allan

15 Citing briefs

  1. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zouvas et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion re: 145 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant Luke C. Zouvas

    Filed March 4, 2019

    Instead, he must identify “with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment” because the duty of the courts is not to “scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). As noted further below, Zouvas has not identified any factual dispute that would merit sending this case to the trier of fact.

  2. Mary B. Paydar et al v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed June 26, 2017

    In order to make this showing, the non-moving party must “identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir.1996). A plaintiff may not meet this burden by relying on inadmissible evidence, such as hearsay or speculation.

  3. Jose Jacobo v. Ross Stores, Inc., et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 26, 2017

    . “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position” is insufficient, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, and it is not the Court’s responsibility “to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact,” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). See also Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch.

  4. Rittmann et al v. Amazon.Com Inc et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF LAWSON TO ARBITRATION AND TO EXCLUDE PUTATIVE ABSENT CLASS MEMBERS WHO AGREED TO ARBITRATE

    Filed December 15, 2016

    (“[I]n construing the enforcement sections of the FLSA, the courts had consistently declared that injunctive relief was not available in suits by private individuals but only in suits by the Secretary.”); Keenan v. Allan, 889 F. Supp. 1320, 1382 (E.D. Wash. 1995), aff'd, 91 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Individuals may not sue for FLSA injunctive relief.”).

  5. Svenson v. Google, Inc. et al

    REPLY

    Filed August 10, 2016

    But Svenson has pointed to no evidence that YCDroid did so, and this Court has no responsibility on summary judgment to “scour the record in search of a genuine issue of fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). Finally, even if her Buyer Information was shared (it was not), it would not necessarily be a breach of Defendants’ privacy policies.

  6. Veliz et al v. Cintas Corporation et al

    Motion for Summary Judgment as Against First Aid and Safety SSR Plaintiffs on Their Third Claim for Relief; Memorandum in Support*

    Filed December 17, 2008

    In determining whether to grant or deny summary judgment, however, it is not a court’s task “to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted). Rather, the court relies on the nonmoving party to identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary judgment.

  7. Perfect 10 Inc v. Amazon.com Inc et al

    REPLY In Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment 132

    Filed September 29, 2008

    It is not the Court’s obligation “to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). The mere existence of a “scintilla” of evidence is not enough to create a “genuine issue of material fact.”

  8. Levi Strauss & Company v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Company

    MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Counterclaims and Selected Affirmative Defenses, and for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claim of Trademark Dilution

    Filed August 15, 2008

    triable fact." Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). I16 i1 B. LS&CO.

  9. Hisamatsu v. Niroula et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment and FRCP 56

    Filed June 10, 2008

    7 The principal purpose of summary judgment procedure is to require the 8 nonmoving party to identify any genuine evidence that precludes summary 9 judgment. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). Without this showing 10 by the nonmoving party, the Movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

  10. Larin Corporation v. Alltrade Inc et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to all claims in the complaint 87

    Filed January 17, 2008

    16 Accordingly, the non-moving party must "identify with reasonable particularity 17 the evidence that precludes summary judgment." Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 18 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). If the non-moving fails to meet its burden, the moving party 19 is entitled to summary judgment as a matter oflaw.