Agapito Fajardo and Clara S. Fajardo - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

               The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding             
          that the plain language of rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil            
          Procedure compelled the result:                                             
               Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment is proper 'if the                   
               pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,                    
               and admissions on file, together with the affidavits,                  
               if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any                  
               material fact and that the moving party is entitled to                 
               a judgment as a matter of law.'  In our view, the plain                
               language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary                   
               judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon                   
               motion, against a party who fails to make a showing                    
               sufficient to establish the existence of an element                    
               essential to that party's case, and on which that party                
               will bear the burden of proof at trial.  In such a                     
               situation, there can be 'no genuine issue as to any                    
               material fact,' since a complete failure of proof                      
               concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's               
               case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.  The              
               moving party is 'entitled to a judgment as a matter                    
               of law' because the nonmoving party has failed to make                 
               a sufficient showing on an essential element of her                    
               case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.                
               * * *                                                                  
          Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra at 322-323.                                 
               Rule 121(b) and rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil               
          Procedure impose identical standards using virtually identical              
          language.  The Supreme Court's decision in Celotex Corp. v.                 
          Catrett, supra, confirms that we may enter a summary judgment in            
          favor of the moving party where the nonmoving party has the                 
          burden of proof at trial and fails to respond to a summary                  
          judgment motion as required by Rule 121.                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011