Epstein Secrets

mplaint in Razorback Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et aL, Case No. 09- 062943(19); see De

e of proof of any essential element of a party's cause of action necessarily renders all other facts offered by the non-moving party immaterial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Just because conflicting evidence exists does not mean probable cause is a jury question." C.A. Hansen Corp

However, the Plaintiff fails to discuss meaningfully the statute at issue or provide any authority relating to the claim Plaintiff seeks to assert. (W.) E. Negligence, wantonness and breach of fiduciary duty claims against BIC (Counts VIII-XI). BIC argues that the Plaintiffs negligence, wantonness

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

n 2 EFTA00583953 Funding, LLC, et aL v. Scott W. Rothstein, et at, Case No. 09-062943(19); see Dep

e of proof of any essential element of a party's cause of action necessarily renders all other facts offered by the non-moving party immaterial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "Just because conflicting evidence exists does not mean probable cause is a jury question." C.A. Hansen Corp

" dispatched to Page 5 Daytona Beach by "Thomas W. Mescrvey, Andrew Barney, Dave McNulty, or Joe F

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