Carter

Carter v. Variflex, Inc.

Good Law
101 F. Supp. 2d 1261·2000 WL 641618·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3743
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaFebruary 15, 2000CV 98-0167 WJR(RNBX)California4,137 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rea, J.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS V, VI, VII, AND VIII OF COUNTERCLAIMS

I. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment Motion

Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to prevail in the case as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The party requesting summary judgment has the initial burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact. See T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Assoc., 809 F.2d 626, 632 (9th Cir.1987). The moving party does not necessarily need to put on evidence to negate the claim,, but may simply point to portions of the pleadings, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and depositions which, along with any affidavits, show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

If the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the opposing party may not rely on denials in the pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the dispute…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.