Filed May 3, 2017
Further, Plaintiff cannot survive summary judgment by relying on unsupported assertions, conclusory allegations, or mere suspicions. Williams, 891 F.2d at 460; see also Choe-Rively v. Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 83, 135 F. Supp. 2d 462, 474-75 (D. Del. 2001) (finding that plaintiff’s unsupported speculation that employer acted with discriminatory animus was insufficient to defeat summary judgment). Rather, Plaintiff “must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its actions that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them ‘unworthy of credence.
Filed June 7, 2017
“ ‘Such affirmative evidence-regardless of whether it is direct or circumstantial-must amount to more than a scintilla, but may amount to less (in the evaluation of the court) than a preponderance.’ “ Saldana, 260 F.3d at 232 (quoting Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460-61 (3d Cir.1989)). III. Discussion Under Monell and its progeny, it is well-settled that a municipality is a “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Filed July 16, 2007
The mere possibility that a hearsay statement will be admissible at trial does not permit its consideration at the summary judgment stage. Proctor v. Armds, Inc., No. 04-cv-899 (PGS), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85333, at *13 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2006); Bouriez v. Carnegie Mellon Univ., No. 02-2104, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25771, *24 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 28, 2005) (citations omitted); see also Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 466 (3d Cir. 1989). With this backdrop, defendants have attempted to mischaracterize the hearsay statement.
Filed April 10, 2017
Plaintiff, however, has provided nothing more than boilerplate, unsupported, and bald allegations of negligence, which is insufficient to survive a challenge under Rules 12(b)(6) and 56(a). See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. 324 (1986) (a plaintiff cannot merely rest on allegations in his complaint); Williams, 891 F.2d at 460 (to defeat a motion for summary judgment, “the nonmoving party must adduce more than a mere scintilla of evidence in his favor.”). Thus, because Plaintiff cannot show that SA Donnelly breached any duty owed to her, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or in the alternative, enter judgment in Defendant’s favor as a matter of law.
Filed March 6, 2017
As the court ~ Dr. Schwartz testified that he used the word “indefinitely” because he did not know for how long Kovensky would be disabled. 29 Case 2:13-cv-05629-JMV-MF Document 109-3 Filed 03/06/17 Page 34 of 45 PageID: 1484 explained in Williams v. Borough of West Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d 458, 460-46 1 (3d Cir. 1989): “Instead, the plaintiff must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.s. at 256—57, 106 S.Ct. at 2514 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
Filed January 12, 2017
The nonmoving party “cannot simply reassert factually unsupported allegations contained in its pleadings.” Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir.1989). ANALYSIS In its motion, Defendant requests summary judgment as to Plaintiff's age discrimination claim as well as his retaliation claim.
Filed December 21, 2016
Project Mgmt. Inst., Inc. v. Ireland, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23710, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2003) (Yohn, J.) (citing Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989)). Instead, the non-moving party must present “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Filed November 11, 2016
Where no reasonable resolution of the conflicting evidence and inferences from such evidence could result in a judgment Case 1:15-cv-07712-JBS-AMD Document 55 Filed 11/11/16 Page 19 of 42 PageID: 462 13 for the non-moving party, the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. See Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989). V. ARGUMENT a. Defendants Are Entitled to Summary Judgment on the TCPA Claim The TCPA prohibits any person from placing autodialed calls to cell phones without the prior express consent of the called party.
Filed October 24, 2016
To overcome a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must raise more than a mere scintilla of evidence in its favor. Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458,460 (3d Cir. 1989). The non-moving party must do more than rely on unsupported assertions, conclusory allegations, or mere suspicions.
Filed August 29, 2016
The Third Circuit has held that a “mere scintilla” of evidence is insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, Pa., 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989). Rather, there must be sufficient evidence on which a factfinder could reasonably find for the plaintiff.