Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs

2 Citing briefs

  1. Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

    RESPONSE in Opposition to 56 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 19, 2016

    Gleason v. Norwest Mortg., Inc., 243 F.3d 130, 138 (3rd Cir. 2001) (a nonmoving party has created a genuine issue of material fact “if it has provided sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find in its favor at trial"), overruled on other grounds by Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of the Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs and Participating Emp'rs, 134 S. Ct. 773 (2014). Wells Fargo has met that burden by introducing evidence that: i) 1 And of course, even if there some inference to that effect were possible that would be insufficient to carry Plaintiff’s initial burden.

  2. TOTAL E&P USA, Inc. v. Marubeni Oil & Gas (USA), Inc.

    REPLY in Support of 230 MOTION for Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Interest

    Filed March 11, 2019

    Rather, the relevant provision simply states 3 The Court need not rule on MOGUS’s pending motion for costs and attorney’s fees before entering a final appealable judgment. See Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund, 571 U.S. 177, 179 (2014) (“Whether the claim for attorney’s fees is based on a statute, a contract, or both, the pendency of a ruling on an award for fees and costs does not prevent, as a general rule, the merits judgment from becoming final for purposes of appeal.”).