Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Jackson

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

May 22, 2017

BRITTANY JOHNSON, JONATHAN JOHNSON, AND AUSTIN JOHNSON Plaintiffs,
v.
EARL JACKSON, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          W. HAROLD ALBRITTON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This case is before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #29), filed by the Plaintiffs and a Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Andrea Hatchcock filed by the Defendant (Doc. #38).

         This case was originally filed as an interpleader action. The insurance company, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, paid insurance policy proceeds into court, and sought the court's determination as to competing claims. The court discharged the insurance company and realigned the parties.

         The re-aligned Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment. The Defendant moves to strike one affidavit upon which the Motion for Summary Judgment is based.

         For the reasons to be discussed, the Motion to Strike is due to be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and the Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be GRANTED.

         II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

         Summary judgment is proper "if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

         The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, ” relying on submissions “which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323. Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must Ago beyond the pleadings” and show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.

         Both the party “asserting that a fact cannot be, "and a party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed, must support their assertions by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, "or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c)(1)(A), (B). Acceptable materials under Rule 56(c)(1)(A) include “depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials."

         To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). On the other hand, the evidence of the nonmovant must be believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in its favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

         After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, 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. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).

         III. FACTS

         The submissions of the parties establish the following facts, construed in a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.