I'm a huge fan of Judge Altonaga and this order is an example why.
I love her understated yet very logical and pointed way of explaining basic principles of law to the parties.
Here she is on how you prepare a statement of facts, or dispute same, for an sj motion:
The Court notes that in responding to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Defendants do not expressly admit or deny any of Plaintiffs’ statements, but rather provide the Court with a list of facts through which the Court must sift. (See generally Defs.’ Resp. SMF). To the extent any listed fact does not expressly oppose Plaintiffs’ corresponding fact, Plaintiffs’ fact will be deemed undisputed. Additionally, the parties include several facts within each numbered paragraph of their respective statements of facts. (See generally Defs.’ SMF [ECF No. 57]; Plf.’s Resp. SMF [ECF No. 75]). To the extent that any party fails to direct the Court to the record evidence in support of its asserted facts (or its reasons for disputing an opposing party’s asserted facts) contained in each sentence, the Court does not consider those assertions in deciding these motions. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)(4).And here she is explaining why the defendants can't prevail on a motion for summary judgment based on a "frivolity" standard:
Defendants first argue that summary judgment should be granted in their favor because the suit is frivolous. . . . As an initial matter, Defendants fail to identify what standard the Court should apply to determine frivolity, which they must do to prevail on their summary judgment motion.
Wait wait I know:
Or maybe this is a better example?
Now that's funny!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét