Porter v. Ray

10 Citing briefs

  1. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, UK Subscribing to Policy No. B1230ap56189a14 v. Fire & Life Safety America, Inc.

    MOTION for partial summary judgment against Defendant, Ocean Walk Resort Condominium Association, Only and Certificate of Service

    Filed September 13, 2016

    As the non- moving party, OWRCA must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Am. K-9 Detection Srvs., Inc., supra, at 8, citing Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115–17 (11th Cir. 1993)). A factual dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”

  2. Friedmann v. Raymour Furniture Co., Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

    Filed June 28, 2013

    The Eleventh Circuit directed its district courts to deny summary judgment “when the party opposing the [summary judgment] motion has been unable to obtain responses to his discovery requests” and the discovery sought would be essential to opposing summary judgment and “relevant to the issues presented by the motion for summary judgment.” Snook, 859 F.2d at 870; see also Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1324 (11th Cir. 2006). In the instant case, Defendant has not turned over to the Plaintiff any of the requested documents concerning the sales records of the salespeople at the time Mr. Friedmann was terminated, specifically the salespeople that sold less than he, but whom Defendant did not even place on a performance improvement plan let alone terminate.

  3. Harbourside Place, LLC v. Town of Jupiter et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 10, 2017

    The non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts Case 9:16-cv-80170-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2017 Page 3 of 20 4 showing there is a genuine issue for trial, through its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file. Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must rely on more than conclusory statements or allegations unsupported by facts.

  4. Harbourside Place, LLC v. Town of Jupiter et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 10, 2017

    The non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial, through its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file. Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006). The party opposing a motion for summary judgment must rely on more than conclusory statements or allegations unsupported by facts.

  5. Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative et al v. Hogan et al

    MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed July 8, 2016

    . __, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) ...................................... passim Moskowitz v. Trustees of Purdue Univ., 5 F.3d 279 (7th Cir. 1993)............................................................................................ 29 Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951 (4th Cir. 1995) .......................... 21, 24 National Advertising Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1991) ............................................................................... 28, 29 Pantry Pride Enterprises, Inc. v. Glenlo Corp., 729 F.2d 963 (4th Cir. 1984) ................. 20 People v. Gutierrez, 324 P.3d 245 (Cal. 2014) ................................................................. 36 People v. Holman, __ N.E.3d __, 2016 WL 868413 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) ....................................................................................................... 36 Poole v. Coakley & Williams Const., Inc., 423 Md. 91 (2011) ................................... 22, 24 Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2006)............................................................ 31, 54 Ross v. Blake, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) ............................................................ 54 Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petrol. Co., 339 U.S. 667 (1950) .............................................. 22 Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) ........................................................................... 32, 33 State ex rel. Murray v. Swenson, 196 Md. 222 (1950) ................................................ 32, 33 Case 1:16-cv-01021-ELH Document 23-1 Filed 07/08/16 Page 7 of 65 vii State v. Castaneda, 842 N.W.2d 740 (Neb. 2014) ............................................................ 33 State v. Wooten, 277 Md. 114 (1976) .................................................................................. 8 Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir. 1992) .............................................................. 22 Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) ..........

  6. Nutrimatix Inc. v. Xymogen, Inc.

    MOTION for partial summary judgment on Defendant's Affirmative Defenses, and Incorporated Statement of Material Facts and Memorandum of Law

    Filed June 24, 2016

    “The burden then shifts to the non-moving party, who must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists” with respect to those issues. Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006). STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1.

  7. Daisy, Inc. v. Pollo Operations, Inc. et al

    MOTION for protective order and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support

    Filed February 27, 2015

    Moreover, the discovery rules do not permit fishing expeditions. Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1324 (11th Cir. 2006). In Hancock Bank v. Hill Street, L.L.C., in denying a request to compel the production of certain information, the court refused to permit defendant “to go on a fishing expedition to see if it can locate some evidence potentially allowing it to raise a presently non-existent defense.”

  8. Knight v. Paul & Ron Enterprises, Inc.

    MOTION for summary judgment

    Filed April 18, 2014

    The Court must draw all inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and resolve all reasonable doubts in that party's favor. See Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The moving party bears the initial burden of showing the Court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial.

  9. Drummond Company, Inc. v. Collingsworth et al

    REPLY Brief

    Filed December 19, 2013

    Drummond’s subpoena to Microsoft “seeks wholly irrelevant information” and “appears to be more of a ‘fishing expedition’ or ‘tool for harassment,’ than a reasonably calculated discovery request.” Id., citing Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1324 (11th Cir.2006). Drummond does not dispute that the requests are duplicative or that Defendants have satisfied their discovery obligations in Balcero and the libel case with respect to these duplicative requests.

  10. Azziz v. Price Waterhouse Coopers, LLP

    MOTION for summary judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

    Filed September 28, 2012

    Once the moving party shows, by reference to record evidence, that there are no genuine issues of material fact, the non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Porter v. Ray, 461 F.3d 1315, 1320 (11th Cir. 2006). II.