Summary Judgment. Either party may file a motion for summary judgment with the arbitrator. The arbitrator is entitled to resolve some or all of the asserted claims through such a motion. The standards to be applied by the arbitrator in ruling on a motion for summary judgment shall be the applicable laws as specified in Section 5 of this Arbitration Agreement.
Summary Judgment. The System Arbitrator may, at any time following the conclusion of any permitted discovery, determine whether or not the complainant’s evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact capable of satisfying the standards imposed by Sections 5 and 6 above. If the System Arbitrator determines that complainant’s evidence is not so sufficient, he shall dismiss the action.
Summary Judgment. Each Borrower hereby acknowledges and agrees that any enforcement action relating to this Agreement, the Note or the other Loan Documents may be brought by motion for summary judgment, in lieu of a complaint, pursuant to Section 3213 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (to the extent such provision is applicable).
Summary Judgment. The Company hereby acknowledges and agrees that any enforcement action relating to this Warrant or any Warrant Shares may be brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint pursuant to Section 3212 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Summary Judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows a party to move for judgment on all or part of a claim or defense at issue in a case. Rule 56(a) provides that the court "shall grant summary judgment 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." A fact is "material" if, in light of the relevant substantive law, "it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation." Maymi v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., 515 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2008). A factual dispute is "genuine" if "'the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Xxxxxxxx x. WellPoint, Inc., 561 F.3d 38, 43 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Xxxxxxxx, 477 U.S. at 248). In making this determination, the court must "constru[e] the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Xxxxxxx x. York Cnty., 433 F.3d 143, 149 (1st Cir. 2005). The record should not, however, be scrutinized piecemeal; rather, it must be "taken as a whole." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Xxxxx x. Xxxx Furniture, 717 F. Supp. 2d 120, 122 (D. Mass. 2010). In a contract dispute, "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate when [the] plain terms [of the contract] unambiguously favor either side." Farmers Ins. Exch. v. RNK, Inc., 632 F.3d 777, 784 (1st Cir. 2011). If the contract is ambiguous, "the court must [] ask whether the extrinsic evidence reveals a genuine issue of material fact regarding the meaning of the ambiguous language." Mason v. Telefunken Semiconductors Am., LLC, 797 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2015). "If the extrinsic evidence is 'so one-sided that no reasonable person could decide the contrary,' the meaning of the language becomes evident" and summary judgment is appropriate. Id. (quoting Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Sec'y of Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 768 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1985)). However, if the extrinsic evidence is "contested or contradictory," there is a material dispute of fact and "summary judgment will not lie." Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Summary Judgment. 22 Rule 7.3 of the Rules, reads in part as follows:
Summary Judgment. As previously mentioned, in Xxxxxxxxx, 831 S.W.2d at 472, the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals stated that it was the better practice for the trial court to determine early in the proceedings whether an agreement is unconscionable. Summary judgment is the optimal method by which to test an agreement for unconscionability early in the game. See, e.g., Xxxx x. Xxxx, 814 S.W.2d 745, 746 (Tex. 1991)(summary judgment, holding that premarital agreement was enforceable, affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court). Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion...” TEX. R. CIV. P. 166(a). Texas courts have expressed a desire to eliminate patently unmeritorious claims through summary judgment procedures. Xxxx x. Texas One Partnership, 796 S.W.2d 206, 209 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1990), writ denied per curiam, 806 S.W.2d 222 (Tex. 1991). A movant must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Xxxxx v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). A movant in summary judgment motion may have differing burdens as to what must be proven, however, depending upon whether he is the claimant or defendant in the underlying case. Because the statute governing enforcement of premarital agreements creates a rebuttable presumption that the agreement is enforceable, the party who seeks to set aside the premarital agreement bears the burden to prove that the agreement is unenforceable. Tex. Fam. Code §4.006. The respective burdens in a summary judgment motion, filed by the party seeking enforcement of a premarital agreement, were set forth in Xxxxxxxx, 799 S.W.2d at 513, as follows: In a summary judgment context, when the movant is seeking to enforce a premarital agreement to which he is a party, such a presumption operates without evidence other than that of the existence and terms of the agreement to establish that there is not a genuine issue of material fact regarding the enforceability of the agreement. The summary judgment is not required to dispense with all issues before the court; a partial summary judgment may be granted when a summary judgment on the entire case is not proper and a conventional trial is necessary as to some issues, but the court can limit those iss...
Summary Judgment. A. Time Requirements. A party may, at any time after the expiration of twenty (20) calendar days from the initial Conference, move for summary judgment upon all or any part of a disputed claim. A party must file a response or opposition to a motion for summary judgment within twenty (20) days of service of the motion. Any reply must be served within ten (1 0) days of service of the response.
Summary Judgment. For grievance arbitration matters not involving discipline of a Guild-represented employee, the parties may agree to submit a summary judgment motion to the arbitrator. The arbitrator may decide the matter and issue on order based upon the summary judgment written record, if the written record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, in which case, the arbitrator will issue a detailed written decision and order.
Summary Judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Xxxxxxxx v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). When the parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment, the court must evaluate each motion on its own merits. See Thermocor, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 480, 485 (1996). In deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate, it is not the court’s function “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Liberty Lobby, 447 U.S. at 249. “The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255; see also United States x. Xxxxxxx, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). However, “the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Liberty Lobby, 447 U.S. at 247-48. Here, taking all of the Prochorenkos’ factual assertions as true, as well as all reasonable inferences from those facts in their favor, the court finds as a matter of law that the “Collitti settlement” did not settle “partnership items” and therefore, the Prochorenkos are not entitled to a tax reduction based on section 6224(c)(2). Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of the United States is appropriate.
