Epstein Secrets

g sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which the party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). At the summary judgment stage, the district court's task is to determine if there is no genuine issue as to

o one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Allen v. Tyson Inc. , 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11 di Cir. 1997), citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a p

udgment where the moving party demonstrates (1) the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and (2) entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); see also Galen v. Cnty. of L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007). The mo

identify specific facts from which a factfinder could reasonably find in the nonmoving party's favor. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). In determining whether the factfinder could reasonably find in the nonmoving party's

en of proof, simply point out to the Court that "the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of her case." Celotex Corp. v. Cat rett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed2d 265 (1986). All doubts as to the existence of a genu- ine issue of material fact must be

l if proof of its existence or nonexistence might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable substantive law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. 91 L.Ed2d 202 (1986). Where there is no material fact in dis- pute, the moving party need only establish that