BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[courtDistrict], [courtDivision]

[plfName]	)	Case No (LT)
Plaintiff	)	[caseNo]
)
v.	)
)
[defName]	)
Defendant	)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, [plfName], on this [D] day of [MMMM] [YYYY], respectfully asks this Honorable Court to deny “[summJudgeMotionTitle]” (hereinafter “That Motion”).

Key Points:

Grounds	[groundsForDenial]

Precedence	This Court regularly denies similar motions

Table of Contents:

Context	2nd Page
Material Facts	3rd Page
Response	4th Page
Certificates	9th Page
Exhibits	10th Page
Affidavits	14th Page

Background:	Defendant moved for summary judgment
Problem:	Defendant’s motion was based on fatal falsehoods
Request:	This Court rejects Defendant’s motion

Rule 56(C) | Fed. R. Civ. P. | (highlights added)

“(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record…; or

(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish [the absence] of a genuine dispute…”

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (highlights added)

“Accordingly, the nonmoving party may defeat a motion for summary judgment that asserts that the nonmoving party has no evidence by calling the court's attention to supporting evidence already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the moving party.”

Abbreviations

{#XX}	-	Docket Entry XX
[C###]	-	Page ### from The Complaint1/
[X###]	-	Exhibit ### from this response (attached)
1DCA	-	First District Court of Appeals (Florida)
4DCA	-	Fourt District Court of Appeals (Florida)
EEOC	-	Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FCHR	-	Florida Commission on Human Relations
FCRA	-	Florida Civil Rights Act (as amended)
FS	-	Florida Statute
USFLMD	-	US District Court, Florida, Middle District

MATERIAL FACTS

Records prove that That Motion is just wrong about its material facts.

[matFact001]

[matFact002]

Segue

Although these two material facts are sufficient to end this discussion (Catrett v. Johns-Manville, 756 F.2d 181 (DC Cir. 1985)), a full response will help illuminate the fallacy of That Motion.

RESPONSE

For starters, Plaintiff hereby will introduce the facts that are not in dispute.

II. Statement of Undisputed Facts

[fact001]

[fact002]

[fact003]

[fact004]

[fact005]

[fact006]

II. Analysis

[any001]

[any002]

[any003]

II. Legal Standard | Summary Judgment

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was filed under Rule 56 Fed. R. Civ. P..

History shows that this Court has a well-established method for resolving Rule 56 motions for summary judgment.

To start out, the Court’s review is bound by the entire record; which includes – but is not limited to:

“particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or...”

Rule 56(c)(1)(A) Fed. R. Civ. P.

Then, the Court looks to see if the movant has proven that the nonmovant cannot produce any triable facts (highlights added):

“As this court and other appellate courts have repeatedly held, the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact is upon the moving party.”

Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1966)

“Rather, as the Court confirms, a party who moves for summary judgment on the ground that the nonmoving party has no evidence must affirmatively show the absence of evidence in the record.”

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

If-and-only-If the movant satisfies this burden, the Court then seeks the nonmovant’s rebuttal (highlights added):

“the party opposing the motion for summary judgment bears the burden of responding only after the moving party has met its burden of coming forward with proof of the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. [Catrett v. Johns-Manville, 756 F.2d 181 (DC Cir. 1985)]”

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

Wherein, the Court requires the nonmovant’s production of evidence (highlights added):

“Accordingly, the nonmoving party may defeat a motion for summary judgment that asserts that the nonmoving party has no evidence by calling the court's attention to supporting evidence already in the record that was overlooked or ignored by the moving party.”

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)

In the event the Court receives two competing sets of material fact, it cannot weigh the evidence (highlights added):

“At the summary judgment stage, the trial judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986)

Instead, the Court has to allocate all presumptions in favor of the nonmovant; and rule accordingly (highlights added):

“As explained above, at the summary judgment stage of the action, the court must construe all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Allen v. Tyson, 121 F.3d 642 (11th Cir. 1997)

III. Application

Altogether, a methodical review of a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment encompasses:

Checking if the movant has satisfied its initial burden (of proving the non-existence of any competing evidence);

Checking if the nonmovant has satisfied its conditional burden (of supplying evidence to rebut the movant’s motion); and

Construing all evidence/inferences in favor of the nonmovant

If either party fails to meet its burden then the Court must rule in favor of that party’s opponent.

In the instant matter, Defendant is the movant while Plaintiff is the nonmovant.

a. Movant’s Burden

Defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden.

[explanationA01]

According to the US Supreme Court, Defendant’s material shortcoming means that this Court must deny That Motion (highlights added):

“If the moving party has not fully discharged this initial burden of production, its motion for summary judgment must be denied, and the court need not consider whether the moving party has met its ultimate burden of persuasion.”

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986

Nevertheless, Plaintiff will still satisfy [his/her] Rule 56 burden.

b. Nonmovant’s Burden

[explanationB01]

According to the US Supreme Court, Plaintiff’s evidentiary supply means that this Court should deny That Motion (highlights added):

“This case is indistinguishable from Adickes. Here, as there, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the record contained no evidence to support an essential element of the plaintiff's claim. Here, as there, the plaintiff responded by drawing the court's attention to evidence that was already in the record and that had been ignored by the moving party. Consequently, here, as there, summary judgment should be denied...”

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986

c. Construing All Evidence/Inference in Nonmovant’s Favor

[explanationC01]

[explanationC02]

REQUEST FOR A PROMPT, FULL AND FAIR HEARING

Plaintiff requests that the parties be afforded a prompt, full and fair hearing on That Motion. [explanationX00]. Pursuant to our constitutions (see 5th Amendment – US, 14th Amendment – US, Art. I §9 FL Constitution), depriving the parties of a summary judgment hearing is tantamount to depriving the parties of their due process rights (also see Kozich v. Hartford, 609 So.2d 147 (4DCA 1992)).

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honorable Court to deny “[summJudgeMotionTitle]”, because Plaintiff has submitted a well-pled set of factual elements pointing to Defendant’s unlawful employment conduct; worthy of a jury’s deliberations.

Dated this [DD] day of [MMMM] [YYYY].

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ [plfName]

[plfName], Plaintiff

[plfAddy]

P: [plfPhn]

E: [plfEml]

W: TextBookDiscrimination.com

Get Booked Up on Justice!

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the size and style of type used in this document is Times New Roman 14-point Font (caption) and Courier New 12-point Font (contents); thus complying with the font requirements of this Court.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this [D] day of [MMM] [YYYY], I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using its online filing page. I also emailed it to the attached service list.

/s/ [plfName]

Endnotes:

How-To Guide: (interactive)

TextBookDiscrimination.com/Guides/Responses/SummaryJudgment

SERVICE LIST

[defAtt], Esquire ([barNum]) E: [defEml] P: [defPhn] (defendant’s trial lawyers)

EXHIBIT 101

[entire document]

EXHIBIT 102

[first page only]

Rule 56(c)(1)(A)

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[courtDistrict], [courtDivision]

[plfName]	)	Case No (LT)
Plaintiff	)	[caseNo]
)
v.	)
)
[defName]	)
Defendant	)

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ‘PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT’

The affiant, Elias Makere, swears or affirms as follows:

Background

I am over the age of eighteen (18).

I am a plaintiff in the above-captioned case.

This affidavit is made in good faith.

Familiarity

I have read the Local Rules of Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Middle District’s Discovery Handbook.

The information in this affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge.

Facts

[fact001]

[fact002]

[fact003]

[fact004]

[fact005]

[fact006]

Request

[req001]

[req001]

Thus, may you please reject [defName]’s Motion for Summary Judgment?

Thank you.

Verification Under Oath Pursuant to 28 USC §1746

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this [DD]th day of [MMMM] [YYYY].

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA	[dtSigned]
[plfName], Plaintiff/Affiant

BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™