6
Total Mentions
6
Documents
53
Connected Entities
Surname or name fragment in documents
The only mention of "Catrett" in the provided documents appears in a legal context, specifically related to the Supreme Court case *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett*.
Catrett is mentioned in *DOJ-COURT-539* as part of the citation *Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317*. This case concerned the standard for summary judgment in court proceedings, specifically regarding asbestos exposure claims. The Supreme Court held that a party moving for summary judgment needs only to show that the opposing party lacks sufficient evidence to support their case.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). The stringent burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court should not grant summary judgment unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, In
Page: EFTA00010530 →R. Civ. P. 56(a). The stringent burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The Court should not grant summary judgment unless it is clear that a trial is unnecessary, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, In
Page: EFTA00027689 →EFTA00235799
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. I 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 any materia
EFTA00808205
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. v. Wicker
EFTA00584338
mplete failure of proof of an essential element necessarily renders all other facts offered by the non-moving party immaterial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). B. SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF EPSTEIN ON EDWARDS' COUNTERCLAIM FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS BECAUSE EDWARD

Jeffrey Epstein
PersonAmerican sex offender and financier (1953–2019)
Jane Doe
PersonPseudonym for anonymous victims/witnesses in Epstein legal proceedings
Celotex Corp.
OrganizationOrganization referenced in documents

United States
LocationCountry located primarily in North America

Bradley Edwards
PersonAmerican attorney who represented Epstein victims, author of Relentless Pursuit

Kenneth Marra
PersonAmerican judge

Anderson
PersonSurname reference in Epstein documents
Jack Goldberger
PersonAmerican criminal defense attorney who represented Jeffrey Epstein, partner at Goldberger Weiss P.A. in West Palm Beach, Florida
Walker
PersonSurname reference in Epstein documents
Zenith Radio Corp.
OrganizationOrganization referenced in documents

the United States District Court
OrganizationU.S. federal trial court with jurisdiction over federal cases

Ted Babbitt
PersonPerson referenced in documents
Stuart Grossman
PersonPerson referenced in documents

Chris Searcy
PersonPerson referenced in documents

Jeffrey Marc Herman
PersonAttorney representing victims in the Jeffrey Epstein case

Kenna
PersonSurname reference in Epstein-related documents

Martha Stewart
PersonAmerican businesswoman, writer, TV personality (born 1941)

Starbucks
OrganizationAmerican multinational coffee company

Jon Kyl
PersonAmerican politician and lobbyist (born 1942)

D. Utah
LocationState of the United States of America