Geoffrion et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support filed by Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #24) is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 6/24/15. (cm, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

DANIELLE GEOFFRION and
DARREN KASMIR
V.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC

§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:14-CV-350
Judge Mazzant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #24). The
Court, having considered the relevant pleadings, finds that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment should be denied.
On March 20, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #24). On May
8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a response (Dkt. #28). On May 18, 2015, Defendant filed a reply (Dkt. #32).
LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims
or defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The trial court must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the party
opposing the motion for summary judgment. Casey Enterprises, Inc. v. American Hardware Mut.
Ins. Co., 655 F.2d 598, 602 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations omitted). The substantive law identifies which
facts are material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

The party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that there is no genuine
issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 247. If the movant
bears the burden of proof on a claim or defense on which it is moving for summary judgment, it must
come forward with evidence that establishes “beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of
the claim or defense.” Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1194 (5th Cir. 1986). But if the
nonmovant bears the burden of proof, the movant may discharge its burden by showing that there
is an absence of evidence to support the nonmovant’s case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325; Byers v. Dallas
Morning News, Inc., 209 F.3d 419, 424 (5th Cir. 2000). Once the movant has carried its burden, the
nonmovant must “respond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth particular facts
indicating there is a genuine issue for trial.” Byers, 209 F.3d at 424 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at
248-49). The nonmovant must adduce affirmative evidence. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
After reviewing the summary judgment evidence, the Court finds that there are issues of fact
.

remaining. Summary judgment should be denied. The case should proceed to trial.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #24) is
hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 24th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2