Inter-National Foundation Corporation v. Disney 1999 Limited Partnership et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment # 117 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/16/2013. (RAK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DISNEY 1999 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Case No. 4:10 CV 1565 RWS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on Plaintiff Inter-National Foundation Corporation‟s motion for
partial summary judgment. “Summary judgment is proper „if the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.‟” Torgerson v. City
of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2)). The movant
“bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion,” and
must identify “those portions of [the record] ... which it believes demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “If the
movant does so, the nonmovant must respond by submitting evidentiary materials that set out
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “On a motion for summary judgment, facts
must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a genuine
dispute as to those facts.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Credibility
determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the
facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530
U.S. 133, 150 (2000), (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). The
nonmovant “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the
material facts,” and must come forward with “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986).
“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
After careful review of the entire file, I will deny Plaintiff‟s motion for partial summary
judgment. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the
claims raised in its second amended complaint. Viewing the facts and inferences therefrom in
the light most favorable to Defendants, a rational trier of fact could find in Defendants‟ favor.
Plaintiff may ultimately prevail on its claims, but it will not do so through summary judgment.1
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff‟s motion for partial summary judgment
[#117] is DENIED.
RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 16th day of May, 2013.
As this case progresses, I advise Defendants to rely on facts and legal authority when arguing
their case rather than resulting to unwarranted and inappropriate “name-calling.”
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?