Opinion
Case No. 04-80724-CIV-DIMITROULEAS.
July 8, 2005
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Gregg Battersby's May 26, 2005 Motion For Summary Judgment [DE-69]. The Court has carefully considered the motion, Plaintiffs June 10, 2005 Response [DE-70] and Defendant's June 20, 2005 Reply [DE-71] and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds as follows:
Summary Judgment Standard
The Court may grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The stringent burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court should not grant summary judgment unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary,Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986), and any doubts in this regard should be resolved against the moving party. Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970).
The movant "bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. To discharge this burden, the movant must point out to the Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. Id. at 325.
After the movant has met its burden under Rule 56(c), the burden of production shifts and the nonmoving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). According to the plain language of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e), the non-moving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations of denials of the adverse party's pleadings, "but instead must come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e);Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.
Essentially, so long as the non-moving party has had an ample opportunity to conduct discovery, it must come forward with affirmative evidence to support is claim. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257. "A mere `scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be a sufficient showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party."Walker v. Darby, 911 F. 2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990). If the evidence advanced by the non-moving party "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, then summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 249-50.
Here, there appears to be materially disputed facts as to whether Gregg Battersby's prior litigation in Ohio affects his Florida property or whether Kelly McCord's, or other Ohio entities', having a priority lien over the Government entitles Gregg Battersby to relief in Florida.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Gregg Battersby's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE-69] is hereby DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.