Filed: Oct. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER DOUGLAS L. RAYES , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Derek Chabrowski's ("Chabrowski") motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 122.) The motion is fully briefed. 1 (Doc. 126.) For the following reasons, Chabrowski's motion for summary judgment is denied. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, viewing those facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.
Summary: ORDER DOUGLAS L. RAYES , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Derek Chabrowski's ("Chabrowski") motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 122.) The motion is fully briefed. 1 (Doc. 126.) For the following reasons, Chabrowski's motion for summary judgment is denied. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, viewing those facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R..
More
ORDER
DOUGLAS L. RAYES, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Derek Chabrowski's ("Chabrowski") motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 122.) The motion is fully briefed.1 (Doc. 126.) For the following reasons, Chabrowski's motion for summary judgment is denied.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and, viewing those facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When moving for summary judgment, the burden of proof initially rests with the moving party to present the portions of the record he believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and the legal basis for his motion. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); see also LRCiv. 56.1(a) (requiring the moving party to submit a "memorandum of law"). If the movant fails to carry his initial burden of production, the non-movant need not produce anything further and the motion for summary judgment fails.
Here, Chabrowski's motion for summary judgment consists of a separate statement of facts and his personal declaration. (Docs. 123, 124.) Missing from Chabrowski's motion is a memorandum of law explaining why, as a matter of law, he is entitled to summary judgment. Even assuming that there are no genuine disputes of material fact, which the Court seriously doubts after reviewing Defendant's controverting statement of facts, Chabrowski fails to explain why he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Chabrowski's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 122) and motion for oral argument (Doc. 133) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reaffirming the pretrial deadlines contained in the Court's March 2, 2018 Order Setting Final Pretrial Conference (Doc. 119), of which all parties should have a copy.
