Summary Judgment Clause Samples

Summary Judgment. Each Borrower hereby acknowledges and agrees that any enforcement action relating to this Agreement, the Note or the other Loan Documents may be brought by motion for summary judgment, in lieu of a complaint, pursuant to Section 3213 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (to the extent such provision is applicable).

Summary Judgment. Should Hormel Foods submit an individual brief, declaration or affidavit, or evidence in support of a motion for summary judgment, Hormel Foods will include language clarifying that all such submissions are directed specifically to Non-DPP Claims. Hormel Foods may join a joint or omnibus brief submitted on behalf of multiple Defendants that addresses issues relevant to defense of the Non-DPP Claims (such as whether Defendants agreed to the alleged conspiracy). Hormel Foods will not join a brief or contribute to briefing that addresses issues unique to the DPPs.

Summary Judgment. The Company hereby acknowledges and agrees that any enforcement action relating to this Warrant or any Warrant Shares may be brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint pursuant to Section 3212 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Summary Judgment. For grievance arbitration matters not involving discipline of a Guild-represented employee, the parties may agree to submit a summary judgment motion to the arbitrator. The arbitrator may decide the matter and issue on order based upon the summary judgment written record, if the written record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, in which case, the arbitrator will issue a detailed written decision and order.

Summary Judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows a party to move for judgment on all or part of a claim or defense at issue in a case. Rule 56(a) provides that the court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." A fact is "material" if, in light of the relevant substantive law, "it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation." Maymi v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., 515 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2008). A factual dispute is "genuine" if "'the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. WellPoint, Inc., 561 F.3d 38, 43 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 477 U.S. at 248). In making this determination, the court must "constru[e] the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. York Cnty., 433 F.3d 143, 149 (1st Cir. 2005). The record should not, however, be scrutinized piecemeal; rather, it must be "taken as a whole." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇ Furniture, 717 F. Supp. 2d 120, 122 (D. Mass. 2010). In a contract dispute, "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate when [the] plain terms [of the contract] unambiguously favor either side." Farmers Ins. Exch. v. RNK, Inc., 632 F.3d 777, 784 (1st Cir. 2011). If the contract is ambiguous, "the court must [] ask whether the extrinsic evidence reveals a genuine issue of material fact regarding the meaning of the ambiguous language." Mason v. Telefunken Semiconductors Am., LLC, 797 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2015). "If the extrinsic evidence is 'so one-sided that no reasonable person could decide the contrary,' the meaning of the language becomes evident" and summary judgment is appropriate. Id. (quoting Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Sec'y of Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 768 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1985)). However, if the extrinsic evidence is "contested or contradictory," there is a material dispute of fact and "summary judgment will not lie." Id. (internal quotations omitted).

Summary Judgment. As previously mentioned, in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 831 S.W.2d at 472, the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals stated that it was the better practice for the trial court to determine early in the proceedings whether an agreement is unconscionable. Summary judgment is the optimal method by which to test an agreement for unconscionability early in the game. See, e.g., ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, 814 S.W.2d 745, 746 (Tex. 1991)(summary judgment, holding that premarital agreement was enforceable, affirmed by the Texas Supreme Court). Rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment “shall be rendered forthwith if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issues expressly set out in the motion...” TEX. R. CIV. P. 166(a). Texas courts have expressed a desire to eliminate patently unmeritorious claims through summary judgment procedures. ▇▇▇▇ ▇. Texas One Partnership, 796 S.W.2d 206, 209 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1990), writ A movant must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ▇▇▇▇▇ v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985). A movant in summary judgment motion may have differing burdens as to what must be proven, however, depending upon whether he is the claimant or defendant in the underlying case. Because the statute governing enforcement of premarital agreements creates a rebuttable presumption that the agreement is enforceable, the party who seeks to set aside the premarital agreement bears the burden to prove that the agreement is unenforceable. Tex. Fam. Code §4.006. The respective burdens in a summary judgment motion, filed by the party seeking enforcement of a premarital agreement, were set forth in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 799 S.W.2d at 513, as follows: In a summary judgment context, when the movant is seeking to enforce a premarital agreement to which he is a party, such a presumption operates without evidence other than that of the existence and terms of the agreement to establish that there is not a genuine issue of material fact regarding the enforceability of the agreement. The summary judgment is not required to dispense with all issues before the court; a partial summary judgment may be granted when a summary judgment on the entire case is not proper and a conventional trial is necessary as to some issues, but the court can limit those issues to be litigated at trial. Under Rule 166a(e...

Summary Judgment. The Arbitrator may, at any time following the conclusion of any permitted discovery, determine whether or not the complainant’s evidence is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact capable of satisfying the standards imposed by Sections 5 and 6 above. If the Arbitrator determines that complainant’s evidence is not so sufficient, he or she shall dismiss the action.

Summary Judgment. The court was incorrect in denying ▇▇▇▇'▇ motion for summary judgment. The issue is whether ▇▇▇▇ is liable as a landowner or landlord for injuries caused by defects of the premises. Per the CPLR, a motion for summary judgment will be granted if there is no triable issue of fact and the issue can be resolved as a matter of law. New York has abolished the different categories of landowner's duties to people who come on to their land. Per New York law, landowners owe a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to anyone who comes on to their land. Here, ▇▇▇▇ came on the land as an invitee because he was doing business with ▇▇▇. The lease between ▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇ required ▇▇▇ to maintain the premises and ▇▇▇▇ simply reserved the right to inspect and repair at his discretion. Thus, ▇▇▇▇ is not liable as a landowner because under the circumstances of a lease giving ▇▇▇ the responsibility to maintain the property, a reasonable landowner is allowed to believe that the equipment will be maintained to be safe. As a landlord, ▇▇▇▇ also escapes liability. Under New York Landlord-Tenant Law, a tenant has a duty to repair and a duty to third parties. A tenant's duty to repair obligates him to maintain the premises in as good a condition as when he leased it. A tenant's duty to third parties covers injuries incurred on the premises even if due to lack of repair. This is true even if the landlord has contracted to make repairs. An exception to this rule exists if the injury occurs in a "public space" which a landlord has a duty to maintain. Here, ▇▇▇ has expressly contracted to maintain the premises. ▇▇▇▇ has contracted to inspect at will and make needed repairs. ▇▇▇ is not relieved of liability by ▇▇▇▇'▇ promise to repair nor is ▇▇▇▇ liable for injuries to third parties due to lack of repair because New York law does not impose liability for third party injuries on a landlord even if he has contracted to repair. One exception to this lack of landlord liability is the public space exception which states that the landlord is responsible for keeping all areas open to the public safe and clear. This exception would not apply however, because a loading dock is not open to the public. It is used by people doing business with the warehouse. Thus, ▇▇▇▇ is not liable for Pete's injuries via his role of landowner because he has not breached a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. He is also not liable as a landlord because tenants have a duty to third parties even whe...

Summary Judgment. 22 Rule 7.3 of the Rules, reads in part as follows: (1) A party may apply to the Court for summary judgment in respect of all or part of a claim on one or more of the following grounds: (a) there is no defence to a claim or part of it; (b) there is no merit to a claim or part of it; (c) the only real issue is the amount to be awarded.