Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

1,000+ Citing briefs

  1. In Re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

    REPLY / Forest's Reply to Plaintiffs' Responses and Objections to Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Public Redacted Version]. Document

    Filed January 22, 2019

    Accordingly, the fact should be deemed admitted. SESAC, 1 F. Supp. 3d at 186 n.3; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). 494.

  2. Blair et al v. Transam Trucking, Inc.

    REPLY to Response to Motion

    Filed June 28, 2013

    Likewise, a number of Plaintiffs’ responses to TransAm’s SOF lack foundation and are not supported by specific references to the record that directly refute the fact as stated. Instead, Plaintiffs pollute the record with legal argument and additional alleged “facts,” which lack proper support by references directly to the record via additional statements of fact as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and D. Kan. Local Rule 56.1.

  3. Walker v. United States Postal Service et al

    Response to Statement of Material Facts re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed November 15, 2010

    Plaintiff has failed to do so, and the Court may therefore consider Paragraph 136 undisputed and admitted. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(e)(2); LR 56.1(B)(2)(a)(2) The USPS further objects on grounds that Plaintiff’s Complaint states that “The Postal Service breached the 2006-2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by and between the Postal Service and the Postal Union.”

  4. Calvo v. Summit Broadband Inc., et al

    MOTION for summary judgment

    Filed February 6, 2019

    Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). However, once the moving party has met that burden by presenting evidence which, if uncontradicted, would entitle it to a directed verdict at trial, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) shifts to the non-moving party the burden of presenting specific facts showing that such contradiction is possible. British Airways Board v. Boeing Co., 585 F.2d 946, 950-52 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 981, 99 S.Ct. 1790, 60 L.Ed.2d 241 (1979).

  5. Reeves Construction Company v. Hayward Industries, Inc. et al

    REPLY to Response

    Filed June 7, 2018

    Because Plaintiff’s Response misstates the testimony and documents at issue, and Plaintiff has failed to cite to any evidence in its Response that directly refutes Paragraph 82, the Court may therefore consider this fact admitted and undisputed for purposes of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)-(2) and (e)(2). Case 5:16-cv-00329-TES Document 82 Filed 06/07/18 Page 32 of 35 33 9069395v.1 Respectfully submitted this 7th day of June, 2018.

  6. Hisamatsu v. Niroula et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment and FRCP 56

    Filed June 10, 2008

    Linear Technology Corp. v. Applied Materials 24 Inc (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 115, 135 n9 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 221, 237 n.9. 25 Case 3:07-cv-04371-JSW Document 91 Filed 06/10/2008 Page 31 of 32 ______________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF MEGUMI HISAMATSU’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FRCP 56(d) DETERMINATION- CASE NO. 3:07-cv-04371-JSW 23 Since this section 17200 count is not asserted against a direct competitor, 1 Plaintiff is not required to show that BOH’s practices are tethered to legislative 2 declared policies. Cal-Teon Communications Inc v. Los Aneles Cellular etc (1999) 3 20 Cal.4th 168, 187 n12, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 548, 565 n12, 973 P.2d 527, 541 n12.

  7. Malik v. District of Columbia et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Order Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56

    Filed April 4, 2007

    1 Dated: April 4, 2007 s/Timothy J. Bojanowski Daniel P. Struck, (D.C. Bar No. CO0037) Timothy J. Bojanowski, (D.C. Bar No. OH0014) JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-7324 Facsimile: (602) 263-7387 Mariana Bravo, (D.C. Bar No. 473809) Colleen Durbin , (D.C. Bar No. 473809) CARR MALONEY, PC 1615 L Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 315-5500 Facsimile: (202) 310-5555 Attorneys for Defendants Case 1:05-cv-01374-RMC Document 37 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 13 of 15 - 14 - 1761628.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 4th day of April 2007, a true an accurate copy of the foregoing Defendants District of Columbia, Corrections Corporation of America, and TransCor’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. p. 56(f) and Motion for Sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g), was sent via first-class mail, postage-prepaid, to: Ismail Abdul Malik, #11340-007 a/k/a Roy Thomas UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY BIG SANDY Post Office Box 2068 Inez, Kentucky 41224 Plaintiff Pro Se s/Dianne Clark Case 1:05-cv-01374-RMC Document 37 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 14 of 15 1761628.1 Case 1:05-cv-01374-RMC Document 37 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 15 of 15

  8. Hornsby-Culpepper v. Ware et al

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION for Summary Judgment , 64 MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 13, 2017

    Response: Defendants objects to this paragraph to the extent that it asserts facts beyond the first-hand knowledge of the affiant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Defendants further object to this paragraph because it is not material.

  9. Tahaya Misr Investment Inc. v. Helwan Cement S.A.E. et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs entire action and Helwans Counter-Claim for Declaratory Judgment

    Filed September 28, 2016

    Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Supplemental Response to Helwan’s Request for Production. Case 2:16-cv-01001-CAS-AFM Document 95-3 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 75 Page ID #:1435 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASE No. 2:16-cv-1001 CAS (AFMx) – 2 – DECLARATION OF LORENZO E. GASPARETTI ISO MOTION OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT HELWAN CEMENT COMPANY S.A.E. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [FED. R. CIV. P. 56] R EE D S M IT H L LP A li m ite d lia bi lit y pa rtn er sh ip fo rm ed in th e St at e of D el aw ar e 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Helwan’s Notice of Deposition of Mohammed Abouelsaad, Plaintiff’s President.

  10. Morse v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment /Adjudication, MPA

    Filed December 23, 2013

    This claim for relief should be dismissed. Case3:12-cv-05289-JSC Document54 Filed12/23/13 Page27 of 28 -22- DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES (F.R.C.P. 56) J:\1752\SF0232\MSJ\MSJ-MPA (Updated).docx Case No: C12-5289 JSC (DMR) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2.