Nor does the Court search the record "to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of fact." Street v. The Court does not weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter. The Court's function at the point of summary judgment is limited to determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to make the issue of fact a proper question for the factfinder. The genuine issue must also be material that is, it must involve facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. To establish a genuine issue as to the existence of a particular element, the nonmoving party must point to evidence in the record upon which a reasonable finder of fact could find in its favor. Once the moving party presents evidence sufficient to support a motion under Rule 56, the nonmoving party is not entitled to a trial merely on the basis of allegations. All facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The moving party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is proper "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, The Court will deem Plaintiff's failure to respond to the motion and the Court's order as a waiver of any opposition to the relief sought by Defendant in this case.
No response was received to the show cause order. No response was received from Plaintiff, and the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause in writing by April 11, 2014, why Defendant's motion for summary judgment should not be granted. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, Plaintiff's response was due 21 days thereafter. Defendant thereafter filed her motion for summary judgment on February 16, 2014. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on September 10, 2010, and on November 2, 2010, the parties stipulated to the transfer of the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.ĭefendant filed an answer to the complaint, as well as a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, on December 10, 2010. Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on August 4, 2010, in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. For the reasons stated herein, the court finds Defendant's motion for summary judgment well-taken, and it will be GRANTED. The court has carefully considered the pending motion and the supporting exhibits in light of the applicable law. Currently pending before the court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff, Regina Sutton Chennault, brings this civil action against Defendant, Pamela Sutton, under the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.
0 kommentar(er)
