Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc.

Good Law
68 F. Supp. 3d 1170·2014 WL 7074266·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172265
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 12, 2014No. CV 13-6496 RSWL (SSx)California3,588 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ronaldlew, J.

ORDER Re: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [46]

I. INTRODUCTION

Currently before the Court is Defendants McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc. And *1172 Sharon Lin’s Motion for Summary Judgment [46]. The Court, having reviewed all papers and arguments submitted pertaining to this Motion, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine issue is one in which the evidence is such that a reasonable fact-finder could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The evidence, and any inferences based on underlying facts, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the opposing party. Diaz v. American Tel. & Tel., 752 F.2d 1356 , 1358 n. 1 (9th Cir.1985).

Where the moving party does not have the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, the moving party may meet its burden for summary judgment by showing an “absence…

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.